What do you think?
Rate this book
Lettre sur la tolerance (1686) et autres textes
La primera de las libertades reivindicadas en la época moderna fue la libertad religiosa, que dentro de la dialéctica del pensamiento liberal puede considerarse no sólo como la primera en el tiempo, sino también como la raíz del desarrollo de las demás libertades. A su vez, en el seno de la idea de la libertad religiosa, la "Carta sobre la tolerancia" de J. Locke, publicada por primera vez en 1689 y 1690, marca un hito en el devenir cultural de la humanidad. Se trata de uno de esos libros breves que, al igual que "El Príncipe" de Maquiavelo o el "Manifiesto Comunista" de Marx y Engels, están destinados a ejercer una decisiva influencia histórica. Aparte de su significación universal, la "Carta" es altamente representativa del pensamiento político inglés en una de las etapas más interesantes de la historia.
286 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1689
118 people are currently reading
4484 people want to read
About the author
John Locke
1,949 books1,449 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 253 reviews
August 22, 2025
آنچه که جان لاک در این کتاب در موردش حرف میزنه، امری است واجب و آرمانی که اگر بهش دست پیدا کنیم کیفیت زندگی خیلی بهتر خواهد شد. موضوع، تساهل در امور دینی است.واکنشی نسبت به سخت گیریهای کلیسا که لاک رو وادار به نوشتن این رساله کرده.اما به نظر من چه در مسیحیتی که موضوع مورد بحث لاک در این کتاب بوده و چه در مورد دین اسلام و هر دین دیگری باید رعایت بشه.اصلا موضوع هم نباید محدود به مسائل دینی باشه و در مسائل مورد مناقشه و بحث برانگیز سیاسی هم میتونه کارکرد داشته باشه.شرایطی که لاک در کتاب در موردش توضیح میده، حقیقتا زیباست؛و البته رسیدن به این زیبایی سخت. منظورم از شرایط یعنی ترسیم آنچه باید باشد که لاک تلاش خودش رو در این رساله کوتاه انجام میده که نشان دهد حاکمیت دینی و حاکم دینی و کلیسا چه طور باید باشد. حیطه ورود به این مباحث تا کجاست و تا چد حدی میتونند برخورد کنند و اساسا برخورد به چه شکلی باید باشد.
رساله کوتاهی بود و بر خلاف تصور اشتباه اولیهام از نثر سنگینی برخوردار نبود و همه به نظرم میتونند بخونند و استفاده کنند.
رساله کوتاهی بود و بر خلاف تصور اشتباه اولیهام از نثر سنگینی برخوردار نبود و همه به نظرم میتونند بخونند و استفاده کنند.
May 25, 2019
Having read the text of the New Testament a fair number of times, I can see nothing that yields the conclusion that the purpose of Christianity is building theocratic nation states. A straightforward reading indicates Christianity occupies a subservient position to civil government while allowing for the possibility of civil disobedience in matters of conscience. When questioned, Jesus seemed to differentiate between the spiritual realm and the political realm. The historical pivot point where Christianity ceased to be a religion under a political system and instead became a religion as a political system occurred with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD. When the Reformation began in 1517, it was still very much tangled up with political power. National rulers would choose – for whatever reasons they each may have had – which particular flavour of Christianity they and by extension their citizens would adhere to. It is not an exaggeration on my part to say that if there was some point of disagreement between the beliefs of the individual and the country in which they lived – if, for example, you were a huguenot in a catholic country or an anabaptist in a reformed country – that the consequences could be very severe. It is in this particular historical context of imprisoning or killing people for not having the correct (ie - state sanctioned) metaphysical beliefs that John Locke wrote his plea for toleration.
Locke provides a simple, straight forward argument that belief should be a matter of personal conviction, not state coercion. The purpose of the civil government is things like preserving order and protecting and securing the rights of the individual. I think Locke is entirely correct in the arguments he makes here. It is futile to think that coercion is a good method of promulgating Christianity or any other ideology, whether it be religious or not. People will say all kinds of words and emulate all kinds of behaviour if failure to do so entails loss of livelihood, liberty, or life. But do they believe it? As the old saying goes: 'Convince a man against his will, he's of the same opinion still.'
Locke wrote his letter addressing a specific problem in a specific time and place and the way to understand historical documents is to read them with that in mind. However, it would be wrong to think that this issue is only something we can glimpse by glancing in the rear view mirror. The obvious examples of modern day theocracies are to be found in middle eastern countries and terrorist organizations like the Islamic State. However, it is worth noting that strains of Christianity like theonomy would be perfectly happy to transform the United States constitution into a variation of the Old Testament legal code.
An excellent little treatise on the need for the separation of church and state. Probably one of the foundational documents in the formation of the western conception of a liberal democracy. Four stars for brevity and clarity.
Locke provides a simple, straight forward argument that belief should be a matter of personal conviction, not state coercion. The purpose of the civil government is things like preserving order and protecting and securing the rights of the individual. I think Locke is entirely correct in the arguments he makes here. It is futile to think that coercion is a good method of promulgating Christianity or any other ideology, whether it be religious or not. People will say all kinds of words and emulate all kinds of behaviour if failure to do so entails loss of livelihood, liberty, or life. But do they believe it? As the old saying goes: 'Convince a man against his will, he's of the same opinion still.'
Locke wrote his letter addressing a specific problem in a specific time and place and the way to understand historical documents is to read them with that in mind. However, it would be wrong to think that this issue is only something we can glimpse by glancing in the rear view mirror. The obvious examples of modern day theocracies are to be found in middle eastern countries and terrorist organizations like the Islamic State. However, it is worth noting that strains of Christianity like theonomy would be perfectly happy to transform the United States constitution into a variation of the Old Testament legal code.
An excellent little treatise on the need for the separation of church and state. Probably one of the foundational documents in the formation of the western conception of a liberal democracy. Four stars for brevity and clarity.
June 2, 2016
John Locke warms my heart.
As a thinker, Locke is formidable. Nonetheless, he is on a level somewhat below other modern philosophers, like Descartes, Hume, and Kant. This is because of his incorrigible habit of stopping his arguments just short of the point at which they would contradict common sense. This is a bad quality in a philosopher, but an endearing quality in a man (as you can tell from his great popularity in his lifetime). And, perhaps from sheer luck, even the logical errors that Locke made have lent themselves to scientific and political progress. So as a result of his winsome personality and his philosophical felix culpas, Locke has shaped the modern world more than Descartes, Hume, and Kant combined! Just goes to show that raw intelligence isn’t necessarily the summum bonum in philosophy.
This is definitely my favorite work by Locke. The Second Treatise of Government and his Essay on Human Understanding are both fascinating, but somewhat dry. Luckily, unlike those two works, Locke wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration in Latin, so the prose is translated, and therefore more lively. What you get is a brilliant, brief, and brazen book, both eloquent and persuasive.
Locke clearly delineates the functions of church and state, and provides a compelling argument in favor of religious tolerance. It’s probably impossible for somebody alive today to fully understand how radical these ideas were. Not only was he willing to tolerate all Christians (which, by itself, would have been progressive), but wishes to extend tolerance to Jews, Muslims, and even Native Americans—I doubted my own eyes when I read that. (In keeping with his tendency to stop arguments short of the point that they would scandalize, he does not wish to extend toleration to atheists.)
In short, if you want to learn about the origins of one of our most basic features of government, if you want to read an argument in favor of religious toleration that is still tremendously relevant, or if you want to acquaint yourself with a one of the most influential thinkers in history, read this.
[I might also suggest John Milton's Areopagitica, a similarly short work in which Milton lays the basis for the freedom of the press, as a good companion piece.]
As a thinker, Locke is formidable. Nonetheless, he is on a level somewhat below other modern philosophers, like Descartes, Hume, and Kant. This is because of his incorrigible habit of stopping his arguments just short of the point at which they would contradict common sense. This is a bad quality in a philosopher, but an endearing quality in a man (as you can tell from his great popularity in his lifetime). And, perhaps from sheer luck, even the logical errors that Locke made have lent themselves to scientific and political progress. So as a result of his winsome personality and his philosophical felix culpas, Locke has shaped the modern world more than Descartes, Hume, and Kant combined! Just goes to show that raw intelligence isn’t necessarily the summum bonum in philosophy.
This is definitely my favorite work by Locke. The Second Treatise of Government and his Essay on Human Understanding are both fascinating, but somewhat dry. Luckily, unlike those two works, Locke wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration in Latin, so the prose is translated, and therefore more lively. What you get is a brilliant, brief, and brazen book, both eloquent and persuasive.
Locke clearly delineates the functions of church and state, and provides a compelling argument in favor of religious tolerance. It’s probably impossible for somebody alive today to fully understand how radical these ideas were. Not only was he willing to tolerate all Christians (which, by itself, would have been progressive), but wishes to extend tolerance to Jews, Muslims, and even Native Americans—I doubted my own eyes when I read that. (In keeping with his tendency to stop arguments short of the point that they would scandalize, he does not wish to extend toleration to atheists.)
In short, if you want to learn about the origins of one of our most basic features of government, if you want to read an argument in favor of religious toleration that is still tremendously relevant, or if you want to acquaint yourself with a one of the most influential thinkers in history, read this.
[I might also suggest John Milton's Areopagitica, a similarly short work in which Milton lays the basis for the freedom of the press, as a good companion piece.]
June 2, 2020
موضوع اصلی کتاب تساهل است. لاک تنها از تساهل دینی صحبت میکند. از تساهل سیاسی حرفی زده نمیشود. مثالهای کتاب بیشتر متوجه فرقهها و مذاهب مختلف مسیحی است. لاک بیدینان را لایق تساهل نمیداند. موضع وی در مورد دینهای گوناگون یکسان نیست و مسیحیت را دین برتر میداند.
دین و حکومت از نظر لاک دو معقولهی کاملاً متفاوت با کارکردهای متفاوتاند. دین را مربوط به ارواح و آخرت انسانها، و حکومت را در خدمت امور مدنی و دنیوری انسانها میداند. به شدت مخالف اختلاط این دو است.
لاک، گهگاه در این کتاب هم به ارزش والای مالکیت و دارایی انسانها اشاره میکند و یکی از وظایف اصلی حکومتها را محافظت از مالکیت میداند.
به لحاظ ساختاری کتاب منظمی نیست. اصولاً کتابی نیست که براساس طرح و استدلالهای منظمی نوشته شده باشد. تکرار و تکرار و اطناب و پرحرفی از مشخصههای کتاب و ظاهراً از خصوصیات معمول قلم لاک هستند. شاید هدف چنین رویهای پرتکرار شیرفهم کردن مخاطبان ناآگاه، کمسواد یا لجوج همدوران او بوده است.
در مقدمهی مفصل (بیش از ۵۰ صفحه) و خواندنی، اجمالاً به عقاید اندیشمندان گوناگون -از جمله خود لاک، و پوپر- در باب تساهل پرداخته میشود. نگاه غالب این اندیشمندان نیز متوجه تساهل دینی و مذهبیست. همچنین انگیزهی بیشترشان، حل نزاع تاریخی کاتولیکها و پروتسانها است. بخشی از این مقدمه اینجا در دسترس است:
http://library.sbu.ac.ir/islandora/ob...
دین و حکومت از نظر لاک دو معقولهی کاملاً متفاوت با کارکردهای متفاوتاند. دین را مربوط به ارواح و آخرت انسانها، و حکومت را در خدمت امور مدنی و دنیوری انسانها میداند. به شدت مخالف اختلاط این دو است.
لاک، گهگاه در این کتاب هم به ارزش والای مالکیت و دارایی انسانها اشاره میکند و یکی از وظایف اصلی حکومتها را محافظت از مالکیت میداند.
به لحاظ ساختاری کتاب منظمی نیست. اصولاً کتابی نیست که براساس طرح و استدلالهای منظمی نوشته شده باشد. تکرار و تکرار و اطناب و پرحرفی از مشخصههای کتاب و ظاهراً از خصوصیات معمول قلم لاک هستند. شاید هدف چنین رویهای پرتکرار شیرفهم کردن مخاطبان ناآگاه، کمسواد یا لجوج همدوران او بوده است.
در مقدمهی مفصل (بیش از ۵۰ صفحه) و خواندنی، اجمالاً به عقاید اندیشمندان گوناگون -از جمله خود لاک، و پوپر- در باب تساهل پرداخته میشود. نگاه غالب این اندیشمندان نیز متوجه تساهل دینی و مذهبیست. همچنین انگیزهی بیشترشان، حل نزاع تاریخی کاتولیکها و پروتسانها است. بخشی از این مقدمه اینجا در دسترس است:
http://library.sbu.ac.ir/islandora/ob...
November 12, 2016
الاحرى بالكاتب ان يوضح عنوان الكتاب، فهو ليس تماما كما هو مكتوب: "رسالة في التسامح" انة في التسامح مع الاديان التوحيدية وحسب، ليس تسامح مع بقية الاديان كالبوذية والزرادشتية والملحدين الخ...
الكتاب عبارة عن دعوة لتقبل الرأي والرأي الاخر وكفالة وضمان حقوق الاخرين بالتعبد وهو يعتبر كتاب ثائر وجريء في زمانه، الان الدساتير والقوانين الوضعية فرضت التسامح في البلدان المتقدمة سواء شاءت ام ابت تلك الامم الى ان بعض معتنيقي الديانات التوحيدية مازالوا ينكرون هذي الحقائق ويدعون الو القتل وادمار لكل من يخالفهم
ونرى كثير من الايديولوجيات الدينية كداعش والوهابية ترتقي المنابر وتحث الحشود من اتباعهم الى القتل والنهب والسلب والدمار حالها حال شريعة اليهود الدامية المجرمة.
كلمة اخيرة؛ الاديان لا ولن تعيش في سلام مع بعضها البعض ببساطة لان كل دين يقصي الدين الاخر ويكفره.
الكتاب عبارة عن دعوة لتقبل الرأي والرأي الاخر وكفالة وضمان حقوق الاخرين بالتعبد وهو يعتبر كتاب ثائر وجريء في زمانه، الان الدساتير والقوانين الوضعية فرضت التسامح في البلدان المتقدمة سواء شاءت ام ابت تلك الامم الى ان بعض معتنيقي الديانات التوحيدية مازالوا ينكرون هذي الحقائق ويدعون الو القتل وادمار لكل من يخالفهم
ونرى كثير من الايديولوجيات الدينية كداعش والوهابية ترتقي المنابر وتحث الحشود من اتباعهم الى القتل والنهب والسلب والدمار حالها حال شريعة اليهود الدامية المجرمة.
كلمة اخيرة؛ الاديان لا ولن تعيش في سلام مع بعضها البعض ببساطة لان كل دين يقصي الدين الاخر ويكفره.
December 16, 2018
Kada gledam portrete Džona Loka, njegovo lice mi se čini kao lice minijaturne glinene figure sa naslikanim licem u par poteza četkicom nekog starog majstora. Njegov izraz lica je uvek zabrinut.
Lok je Pismo o toleranciji uputio prijatelju teologu Filipu van Limborhu 1689. Limborh je pismo objavio bez Lokovog znanja. Pretpostavljam zato što je u njemu video rešenje za prestanak dugih i krvavih verskih ratova. Kao i svako rešenje za velike stvari i ovo je bilo jednostavno. Ukratko, Lok se u pismu zalaže za razdvajanje države i crkve i njihovo ograđivanje u dva različita dvorišta. Država je zajednica ljudi koja postoji da bi obezbedila, očuvala i unapredila građanske interese (život, zdravlje, bezbednost i posedovanje dobara). Sa druge strane, crkva je zajednica ljudi koji su se dobrovoljno okupili radi bogosluženja na način koji ti ljudi smatraju bogougodnim. Dva različita dvorišta, bez mogućnosti da utiču jedno na drugo. U kom crkvenom dvorištu će pojedinac da pripada mora da postane odluka svakog pojedinca na osnovu njegove unutašnje savesti i takva odluka se mora poštovati. Vera je bezvredna i čak uvredljiva za Boga ako čovek ne veruje onako kako mu savest nalaže. Prema tome, država ne može spolja propisati veru i nametnuti je pojedincu, jer ona mora biti iskrena, utemeljena na ličnom uverenju da je njegovom Bogu ona po volji. Ovo je bilo seme na kome će se vekovima kasnije izgraditi državni sekularizam.
U središtu Lokove zamisli je ideja tolerancije. Interesatno je da mi koristimo ovaj latinski termin mnogo češće neko srpski ekvivalent koji glasi trpeljivost. Trpeljivost svojim korenom razotkriva suštinu tolerancije – TRPETI tuđe izbore, TRPETI tuđe načine života, TRPETI tuđe vizije, TRPETI tuđe sobe, TRPETI tuđa dvorišta, čak i onda kada su oni suprotni našem izboru, životu, viziji, sobi, dvorištu. IsTRPETI čak i ova tri nabijena suglasnika na početku ove reči. Trpeljivost je jedna od najlepših reči srpskog jezika.
Dosta se pisalo o tome šta je sve dobro donelo sferi države ovakvo rešenje filozofa glinenog lika. Ja želim da pišem o tome šta je ono donelo veri. Vera je danas lična afera između individue i Boga, a ne orgija moći između zajednice, crkve i države. Sa Bogom možemo spontano da razgovaramo i da se upoznajemo gradeći ljubavnički odnos na temelju slobode. Svi kojima to danas ne odgovara i koji žude za nekim starim sistemima, zapravo žude za zakopanim perverzijama, a ne božanskim dodirom.
Lok je Pismo o toleranciji uputio prijatelju teologu Filipu van Limborhu 1689. Limborh je pismo objavio bez Lokovog znanja. Pretpostavljam zato što je u njemu video rešenje za prestanak dugih i krvavih verskih ratova. Kao i svako rešenje za velike stvari i ovo je bilo jednostavno. Ukratko, Lok se u pismu zalaže za razdvajanje države i crkve i njihovo ograđivanje u dva različita dvorišta. Država je zajednica ljudi koja postoji da bi obezbedila, očuvala i unapredila građanske interese (život, zdravlje, bezbednost i posedovanje dobara). Sa druge strane, crkva je zajednica ljudi koji su se dobrovoljno okupili radi bogosluženja na način koji ti ljudi smatraju bogougodnim. Dva različita dvorišta, bez mogućnosti da utiču jedno na drugo. U kom crkvenom dvorištu će pojedinac da pripada mora da postane odluka svakog pojedinca na osnovu njegove unutašnje savesti i takva odluka se mora poštovati. Vera je bezvredna i čak uvredljiva za Boga ako čovek ne veruje onako kako mu savest nalaže. Prema tome, država ne može spolja propisati veru i nametnuti je pojedincu, jer ona mora biti iskrena, utemeljena na ličnom uverenju da je njegovom Bogu ona po volji. Ovo je bilo seme na kome će se vekovima kasnije izgraditi državni sekularizam.
U središtu Lokove zamisli je ideja tolerancije. Interesatno je da mi koristimo ovaj latinski termin mnogo češće neko srpski ekvivalent koji glasi trpeljivost. Trpeljivost svojim korenom razotkriva suštinu tolerancije – TRPETI tuđe izbore, TRPETI tuđe načine života, TRPETI tuđe vizije, TRPETI tuđe sobe, TRPETI tuđa dvorišta, čak i onda kada su oni suprotni našem izboru, životu, viziji, sobi, dvorištu. IsTRPETI čak i ova tri nabijena suglasnika na početku ove reči. Trpeljivost je jedna od najlepših reči srpskog jezika.
Dosta se pisalo o tome šta je sve dobro donelo sferi države ovakvo rešenje filozofa glinenog lika. Ja želim da pišem o tome šta je ono donelo veri. Vera je danas lična afera između individue i Boga, a ne orgija moći između zajednice, crkve i države. Sa Bogom možemo spontano da razgovaramo i da se upoznajemo gradeći ljubavnički odnos na temelju slobode. Svi kojima to danas ne odgovara i koji žude za nekim starim sistemima, zapravo žude za zakopanim perverzijama, a ne božanskim dodirom.
December 2, 2024
"Писмо за толерантността" на Джон Лок (1632-1704) бележи важен момент в развитието на политическата философия не само в Англия, но и в цяла Европа. Тази творба на Джон Лок е публикувана за пръв път през 1689 г. на латински език и полага основите на принципа на разделението на Църквата от Държавата, като се превръща в един от най-значителните текстове в либералната политическа теория.
"Смятам, че държавата представлява обществото от хора, образувано единствено заради осъществяване, съхраняване и развитие на техните граждански интереси."
"Под църква аз разбирам доброволното общество от хора, събрали се заедно по собствено съгласие с цел публично богослужение, организирано по начин, който те смятат, че е угоден Богу и че спомага за спасението на душите им."
В книгата се съдържа увод от проф. Светослав Малинов, който запознава читателя не само с личността на Джон Лок, но и историческия и политически контекст в Англия в края на 16 и началото на 17 век.
"Смятам, че държавата представлява обществото от хора, образувано единствено заради осъществяване, съхраняване и развитие на техните граждански интереси."
"Под църква аз разбирам доброволното общество от хора, събрали се заедно по собствено съгласие с цел публично богослужение, организирано по начин, който те смятат, че е угоден Богу и че спомага за спасението на душите им."
В книгата се съдържа увод от проф. Светослав Малинов, който запознава читателя не само с личността на Джон Лок, но и историческия и политически контекст в Англия в края на 16 и началото на 17 век.
December 18, 2017
ينقسم الكتاب الى قسمين، المقدمة الأولى التي تحتوي على استعراض لتاريخ التسامح في العالم المسيحي ومن ثم استعراض الى التاريخ الذي كتب به جان لوك رسالته، والظروف المحيطة لها وكذلك استعراض اقتباسات من الرسالة نفسها
واما القسم الثاني فانه يحتوي على رسالة التسامح التي لم اطق في حقيقة الأمر قراءتها لأن موضوعها اكل الدهر عليه وشرب ولذلك شرعت اقلب بالصفحات عسى ان انتهي من الكتاب... حتى اذا بي انتهيت من قراءته دون قراءة الرسالة بالمرة
واما القسم الثاني فانه يحتوي على رسالة التسامح التي لم اطق في حقيقة الأمر قراءتها لأن موضوعها اكل الدهر عليه وشرب ولذلك شرعت اقلب بالصفحات عسى ان انتهي من الكتاب... حتى اذا بي انتهيت من قراءته دون قراءة الرسالة بالمرة
October 30, 2012
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.
February 22, 2017
عندما قرأت رأي لوك حول المفكرين غير المؤمنين وقوله انه يحترم الذي يفكر حتى ولو لم يهديه تفكيره للايمان على من يؤمن دون تفكير تذكرت من فوري الحديث الشريف الذي يقوم فيما معناه من اجتهد فأخطا فله أجر فإن أصاب فله أجران ثم تذكرت رد راسل على المذيعة التي سألته ماذا لو وجدت بعد الموت ان هناك اله ويوم آخر وحساب كما تقول الاديان فأجابها أنه سيقول لله انه بذل كل جهده كي يصل اليه لكنه فشل
الكتاب سهل وجيد
الكتاب سهل وجيد
February 28, 2018
1685'te yazılmış. 1685!:
"Siyasî yönetimin işlerini, din işlerinden kesinlikle ayırt etmeyi ve ikisi arasına âdil sınırlar koymayı bütün her şeyin üzerinde zorunlu buluyorum. Eğer bu yapılmazsa, bir tarafta insan ruhunun çıkarlarıyla ilgilenenler, yahut en azından ilgilendiklerini iddia edenler ile, öte tarafta devleti koruyan, yahut en azından koruduklarını ileri sürenler arasında sürekli ortaya çıkacak olan ihtilâflara son verilemez."
"Siyasî yönetimin işlerini, din işlerinden kesinlikle ayırt etmeyi ve ikisi arasına âdil sınırlar koymayı bütün her şeyin üzerinde zorunlu buluyorum. Eğer bu yapılmazsa, bir tarafta insan ruhunun çıkarlarıyla ilgilenenler, yahut en azından ilgilendiklerini iddia edenler ile, öte tarafta devleti koruyan, yahut en azından koruduklarını ileri sürenler arasında sürekli ortaya çıkacak olan ihtilâflara son verilemez."
Read
June 13, 2018النسخة التي قرأت كانت من ترجمة بدوي عن اللاتينية مع مراجعتها عن الإيطالية والفرنسية والألمانية والإنجليزية، مع مقدمة طويلة مقارنة ومفاضلة بين الطبعات والترجمات الأجنبية وتبيان مجهود كل منهم، والذي بكل حال لن يقارب مجهود بدوي وجديته العلمية وسعيه الدؤوب للإلمام التاريخي بكل شيء
يعقب ذلك تعليق بدوي ودراسته لجون لوك وللرسالة ولعصرها ولعصر كاتبها، مع مناقشة بعض أفكارها، كمثل مع من يمكننا أن نتسامح، أشكتل التسامح، السلطة وحدودها، السلطة الدينية والسلطة المدنية، الحاكم وحدود تصرفه في ما يتملكه الفرد وما إلى ذلك
يعيب بدوي على لوك أن تسامحه كلن محصورًا على البروتستانت، وأنه حرم منه بطبيعة الحال الكفار والملاحدة والمؤمنين الأخر، وأن كان مع ذلك لم يبح للحاكم حق التصرف فيهم بالشكل الاستباحي الذي قد يخطر بالبال
الرسالة لم تكن مهمة أو عظيمة الفائدة في رأيي لأن رأيه لم يكن بالعمق الكافي أو بمعنى أقل نخبوية، لم يكن بالذي يستحق أفراد صفحات جديدة فيه طالما لم يخرج عن نطاق الحس السليم المشترك
لكن لا غبار على أعمية هذا الكتاب لو نظرنا لو بعيون عصره، حيث كان أي تفكير في مجرد قبول الآخر يعد بمثابة الهرطقة (بدافع الحروب السياسية بين المقاطعات والإمارات، أكثر من كونها خلافات فكرية، كنا سيستبين) يمكن النظر إلى الكتاب بوصفه محطة الانتقال من مرحلة كابوس الاضطهاد الديني والمحاكمات للأفكار، عبورَا بشاطئ الإصلاح الديني، ووصولا إلى مرحلة الأنوار
يعقب ذلك تعليق بدوي ودراسته لجون لوك وللرسالة ولعصرها ولعصر كاتبها، مع مناقشة بعض أفكارها، كمثل مع من يمكننا أن نتسامح، أشكتل التسامح، السلطة وحدودها، السلطة الدينية والسلطة المدنية، الحاكم وحدود تصرفه في ما يتملكه الفرد وما إلى ذلك
يعيب بدوي على لوك أن تسامحه كلن محصورًا على البروتستانت، وأنه حرم منه بطبيعة الحال الكفار والملاحدة والمؤمنين الأخر، وأن كان مع ذلك لم يبح للحاكم حق التصرف فيهم بالشكل الاستباحي الذي قد يخطر بالبال
الرسالة لم تكن مهمة أو عظيمة الفائدة في رأيي لأن رأيه لم يكن بالعمق الكافي أو بمعنى أقل نخبوية، لم يكن بالذي يستحق أفراد صفحات جديدة فيه طالما لم يخرج عن نطاق الحس السليم المشترك
لكن لا غبار على أعمية هذا الكتاب لو نظرنا لو بعيون عصره، حيث كان أي تفكير في مجرد قبول الآخر يعد بمثابة الهرطقة (بدافع الحروب السياسية بين المقاطعات والإمارات، أكثر من كونها خلافات فكرية، كنا سيستبين) يمكن النظر إلى الكتاب بوصفه محطة الانتقال من مرحلة كابوس الاضطهاد الديني والمحاكمات للأفكار، عبورَا بشاطئ الإصلاح الديني، ووصولا إلى مرحلة الأنوار
December 17, 2024
John Locke's LOL Guide to Modern Mayhem
Hey there, fellow netizens! Let's dive into the wacky world of today through the eyes of ol' John Locke. You know, the dude who basically said, "Chill with the religious drama, folks!" If he were alive today, I bet he'd have some thoughts on the circus we call modern life. Buckle up for a humorous take on Locke's principles applied to our current chaos!
Religious Tolerance: The Locke Way
Imagine Locke walking into the modern era with his Letter Concerning Toleration in hand, ready to school us on how to handle religious affairs. He'd probably look at groups like the Islamic State (IS) and go, "Guys, you're doing it all wrong!" Remember, Locke was all about not forcing your religious beliefs down others' throats. He'd point at IS's shenanigans - like, "You think you're building a caliphate? More like a 'Calamity-vate' with all that forced conversion and destruction of culture!" He'd argue for a world where the government doesn't play 'God' in religious affairs, much like he did back in his day, advocating for each to practice their faith in peace, not pieces.
Separation of Church and State: A Modern Comedy
Locke would laugh (or maybe cry) at how some places still mix religion with politics like it's a smoothie you'd regret in the morning. He'd see the news about politicians using religion to score points or control people's lives and be like, "I wrote a whole letter against this, did you not read it?" He'd probably watch modern governance and say, "The magistrate's job is to ensure peace, not to pick which prayer is best!" His ideas would suggest that the separation of church and state should be like peanut butter and jelly - separate but amazing when they respect each other's space.
Human Rights and Freedom: Locke's Stand-Up Routine
If Locke were here, he'd do a stand-up on human rights, especially after seeing how some groups treat women, minorities, or anyone not fitting their narrow worldview. He'd mock IS's "governance" by saying, "So, you think enslaving people and forcing marriages is how you protect 'life, liberty, and estate'? Sounds more like 'life, tyranny, and estate of confusion' to me!" Locke would push for freedom, not just for the select few but for everyone, emphasizing that true belief cannot be forced, only chosen freely.
The Internet: Locke's New Frontier
Locke would find the internet both a marvel and a minefield. He'd love how it allows for the spread of ideas and knowledge but would probably cringe at social media echo chambers or cyberbullying under the guise of religious righteousness. He'd advocate for an online space where people could express their beliefs without fear of persecution, much like his vision for religious tolerance. He might even start a blog called "Tolerance Times" to spread his gospel of chill.
Cultural and Historical Preservation: Locke's Antique Shop
Seeing IS's destruction of cultural sites, Locke would be like, "You're literally erasing the history book! How are we supposed to learn from the past if you're turning it into rubble?" He'd argue for preserving our collective heritage as a means to understand and respect diversity, not just in religion but in all human endeavors.
In the end, Locke's philosophy, if applied today, would be a comedic yet poignant reminder that we should all strive for a world where we can debate, disagree, and still share a laugh over our differences. So, here's to John Locke, the philosopher who would've loved to see his ideas turned into memes, advocating for a world where we're all free to believe, or not believe, in peace.
Keep tolerating, folks, and maybe, just maybe, we'll all get along better than Locke could've hoped for back in his day.
Stay groovy,
Sotos imagination assisted by @grok
P.S. Don't forget to share this post; Locke would've wanted his ideas to go viral, right?
Hey there, fellow netizens! Let's dive into the wacky world of today through the eyes of ol' John Locke. You know, the dude who basically said, "Chill with the religious drama, folks!" If he were alive today, I bet he'd have some thoughts on the circus we call modern life. Buckle up for a humorous take on Locke's principles applied to our current chaos!
Religious Tolerance: The Locke Way
Imagine Locke walking into the modern era with his Letter Concerning Toleration in hand, ready to school us on how to handle religious affairs. He'd probably look at groups like the Islamic State (IS) and go, "Guys, you're doing it all wrong!" Remember, Locke was all about not forcing your religious beliefs down others' throats. He'd point at IS's shenanigans - like, "You think you're building a caliphate? More like a 'Calamity-vate' with all that forced conversion and destruction of culture!" He'd argue for a world where the government doesn't play 'God' in religious affairs, much like he did back in his day, advocating for each to practice their faith in peace, not pieces.
Separation of Church and State: A Modern Comedy
Locke would laugh (or maybe cry) at how some places still mix religion with politics like it's a smoothie you'd regret in the morning. He'd see the news about politicians using religion to score points or control people's lives and be like, "I wrote a whole letter against this, did you not read it?" He'd probably watch modern governance and say, "The magistrate's job is to ensure peace, not to pick which prayer is best!" His ideas would suggest that the separation of church and state should be like peanut butter and jelly - separate but amazing when they respect each other's space.
Human Rights and Freedom: Locke's Stand-Up Routine
If Locke were here, he'd do a stand-up on human rights, especially after seeing how some groups treat women, minorities, or anyone not fitting their narrow worldview. He'd mock IS's "governance" by saying, "So, you think enslaving people and forcing marriages is how you protect 'life, liberty, and estate'? Sounds more like 'life, tyranny, and estate of confusion' to me!" Locke would push for freedom, not just for the select few but for everyone, emphasizing that true belief cannot be forced, only chosen freely.
The Internet: Locke's New Frontier
Locke would find the internet both a marvel and a minefield. He'd love how it allows for the spread of ideas and knowledge but would probably cringe at social media echo chambers or cyberbullying under the guise of religious righteousness. He'd advocate for an online space where people could express their beliefs without fear of persecution, much like his vision for religious tolerance. He might even start a blog called "Tolerance Times" to spread his gospel of chill.
Cultural and Historical Preservation: Locke's Antique Shop
Seeing IS's destruction of cultural sites, Locke would be like, "You're literally erasing the history book! How are we supposed to learn from the past if you're turning it into rubble?" He'd argue for preserving our collective heritage as a means to understand and respect diversity, not just in religion but in all human endeavors.
In the end, Locke's philosophy, if applied today, would be a comedic yet poignant reminder that we should all strive for a world where we can debate, disagree, and still share a laugh over our differences. So, here's to John Locke, the philosopher who would've loved to see his ideas turned into memes, advocating for a world where we're all free to believe, or not believe, in peace.
Keep tolerating, folks, and maybe, just maybe, we'll all get along better than Locke could've hoped for back in his day.
Stay groovy,
Sotos imagination assisted by @grok
P.S. Don't forget to share this post; Locke would've wanted his ideas to go viral, right?
December 18, 2014
الكتاب إذا يعرض التسامح من وجهة نظر فيلسوف عاش فترة التناحر بين المذاهب المسيحية من ناحية والتناحر بين الكنيسة وأباطرة إنجلترا من ناحية أخري، إلا أن عبد الرحمن بدوي يري في "رسالة لوك للتسامح" استشرافا لآفاق أوسع من ظروف انجلترا وتحمل في ثناياها دعوة حارة إلي حرية الضمير بوصفها حقا طبيعيا لكل إنسان.
كتب لوك (رسالة فى التسامح) في منفاه بهولندا بتحريض من الرجل الدولة (اللورد شافتسبرى) الذي كان مهموما من الشقاق الديني السائد في اوروبا وقتذاك وحررها باللاتينية ونشرها خلواً من اسمه 1689 وكان يقصد التسامح الدينى بمعنى
” أنه ليس من حق أحد أن يقتحم بإسم الدين الحقوق المدنية والأمور الدنيوية. ولهذا فإن فن الحكم ينبغى ألا يحمل فى طياته أية معرفة عن الدين الحق. ومعنى ذلك ان التسامح الدينى يستلزم ألا يكون للدولة دين لأن خلاص النفوس من شأن الله وحده ثم ان الله لم يفوض أحداً فى ان يفرض على اى انسان ديناً معيناً. ثم ان قوة الدين الحق كامنة فى اقتناع العقل اى كامنة فى باطن الانسان. وبسبب هذه الافكار هوجم لوك فألف ��سالة ثانية فى التسامح فى يونيو 1690 وثالثة فى يونيو 1692.
و يقول
أن الشىء الوحيد الذى يربط اى فرد بمجتمع دينى هو أمله فى حياة أبدية ومن ثم فإن الكنيسة ما هى إلا تجمع أفراد احتشدوا فيها طواعية لتحقيق هذه الغاية.
سلطة الحكم المدنى تتعلق فقط بالخيرات المدنية للبشر ، وتقوم على حماية الأشياء المتعلقة بهذا العالم ولا تمت بأية صلة الى العالم الآخر !
كتب لوك (رسالة فى التسامح) في منفاه بهولندا بتحريض من الرجل الدولة (اللورد شافتسبرى) الذي كان مهموما من الشقاق الديني السائد في اوروبا وقتذاك وحررها باللاتينية ونشرها خلواً من اسمه 1689 وكان يقصد التسامح الدينى بمعنى
” أنه ليس من حق أحد أن يقتحم بإسم الدين الحقوق المدنية والأمور الدنيوية. ولهذا فإن فن الحكم ينبغى ألا يحمل فى طياته أية معرفة عن الدين الحق. ومعنى ذلك ان التسامح الدينى يستلزم ألا يكون للدولة دين لأن خلاص النفوس من شأن الله وحده ثم ان الله لم يفوض أحداً فى ان يفرض على اى انسان ديناً معيناً. ثم ان قوة الدين الحق كامنة فى اقتناع العقل اى كامنة فى باطن الانسان. وبسبب هذه الافكار هوجم لوك فألف ��سالة ثانية فى التسامح فى يونيو 1690 وثالثة فى يونيو 1692.
و يقول
أن الشىء الوحيد الذى يربط اى فرد بمجتمع دينى هو أمله فى حياة أبدية ومن ثم فإن الكنيسة ما هى إلا تجمع أفراد احتشدوا فيها طواعية لتحقيق هذه الغاية.
سلطة الحكم المدنى تتعلق فقط بالخيرات المدنية للبشر ، وتقوم على حماية الأشياء المتعلقة بهذا العالم ولا تمت بأية صلة الى العالم الآخر !
April 27, 2022
Originally a private letter to a Dutch friend who published it without his knowledge, the political thoughts of John Locke was first introduced to his native England in A Letter Concerning Toleration that would allow his future works to gain a large reading then and now.
In a time of political and religious conflict, Locke’s Letter revealed not only his uncertainty of known the “one true religion” when so many versions of Christianity existed but mixed that uncertainty with practical implications what how the peace in civil society would be affected by religious toleration with a reliance on Biblical analysis in key junctions within his argument. While not explicitly copying Roger Williams’ argument that the state can not enforce the first four commandments of the Decalogue as it would be interfering with God, Locke comes close in his argument that civil magistrates should only focus on keeping the peace of civil society by staying out of God’s purview because it would—though implying it already had—result in oppressed groups disrupting civil society either through civic action against them or them acting out in desperation. Locke’s Letter is not as thoroughly anti-Catholic has it was originally thought—though the criticism of High Church Anglicans that his argument for religious toleration would allow a Catholic takeover of England can be seen as them trying to insert a “boogeyman” to hid the fact they were attempting to do what he opposed—as while he opposed those that followed a “foreign” Prince (the Pope with worldly authority), if others who followed the same religious practices and theology while following their natural civil magistrates (essentially practicing Catholic who view the Pope as authority on spiritual matters only) he saw no reason why the latter could not be tolerated. Only at the end of the Letter when Locke discusses heresy and schism that his thoughts are hard to decipher and what relevance it had in the overall work.
A Letter Concerning Toleration was John Locke’s call for government not to concern itself with the spiritual salvation of its citizens and only on their civic wellbeing, while implying that religion should focus the spiritual not the civil. This short piece gives the reader an introduction into Locke’s writing before going on to longer pieces.
In a time of political and religious conflict, Locke’s Letter revealed not only his uncertainty of known the “one true religion” when so many versions of Christianity existed but mixed that uncertainty with practical implications what how the peace in civil society would be affected by religious toleration with a reliance on Biblical analysis in key junctions within his argument. While not explicitly copying Roger Williams’ argument that the state can not enforce the first four commandments of the Decalogue as it would be interfering with God, Locke comes close in his argument that civil magistrates should only focus on keeping the peace of civil society by staying out of God’s purview because it would—though implying it already had—result in oppressed groups disrupting civil society either through civic action against them or them acting out in desperation. Locke’s Letter is not as thoroughly anti-Catholic has it was originally thought—though the criticism of High Church Anglicans that his argument for religious toleration would allow a Catholic takeover of England can be seen as them trying to insert a “boogeyman” to hid the fact they were attempting to do what he opposed—as while he opposed those that followed a “foreign” Prince (the Pope with worldly authority), if others who followed the same religious practices and theology while following their natural civil magistrates (essentially practicing Catholic who view the Pope as authority on spiritual matters only) he saw no reason why the latter could not be tolerated. Only at the end of the Letter when Locke discusses heresy and schism that his thoughts are hard to decipher and what relevance it had in the overall work.
A Letter Concerning Toleration was John Locke’s call for government not to concern itself with the spiritual salvation of its citizens and only on their civic wellbeing, while implying that religion should focus the spiritual not the civil. This short piece gives the reader an introduction into Locke’s writing before going on to longer pieces.
April 5, 2024
Published in 1689, A Letter Concerning Toleration is a seminal piece of political-philosophical literature. John Locke argued that there should be a separation between the state and religion. The purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty and property--not forcefully inculcate individual religious belief. Locke further contends that religions ought to be tolerated. This, in turn, contributes to greater societal development. Tolerance, however, is limited. Religions must be non-violent and not seek to overthrow civil government. The influence of Lockean thought is evinced by modern secular societies.
Locke controversially argues that atheists cannot be tolerated as they have no motivation to follow rules without a concomitant fear in god. Such thinking indicts theologians for relying on threats of punishment to be good--why not just be good for goods sake? It is also historically ironic because Locke writes half a century after the Thirty Years War and one year after the Glorious Revolution. Both were underpinned by religious differences, with the former resulting in up to eight million deaths, and the latter threatening a second English civil war. By contrast, at no point in history have atheists proselytised with violence.
Locke controversially argues that atheists cannot be tolerated as they have no motivation to follow rules without a concomitant fear in god. Such thinking indicts theologians for relying on threats of punishment to be good--why not just be good for goods sake? It is also historically ironic because Locke writes half a century after the Thirty Years War and one year after the Glorious Revolution. Both were underpinned by religious differences, with the former resulting in up to eight million deaths, and the latter threatening a second English civil war. By contrast, at no point in history have atheists proselytised with violence.
Want to read
June 18, 2023Zach says read this.
March 26, 2020
Le nuove sfide politiche, economiche e sociali che il mondo di oggi ci pone davanti ricordano, in maniera drammatica e triste, quella che l'Europa ha dovuto combattere e vincere tre secoli fa per arrivare a quella società aperta e libera che è il suo vanto di fronte alla storia.
Ancora una volta sangue versato in nome dell'ideologia o peggio di una truffaldina fede, ancora una volta strutture di potere di diabolica doppiezza che da un lato incitano l'odio delle masse contro il nemico culturale ed ideologico, dall' altro si arricchiscono tendendo la mano proprio a quel cosiddetto nemico; intere fasce sociali ormai incapaci di pensare in modo complesso costrette a vedere i suoi giovani consegnarsi di propria volontà ad astuti affabulatori o peggio: tutto ciò che conosciamo bene insomma.
Perchè dunque non ricominciare da capo, riaprendo gli scritti di coloro che hanno tentato in ogni modo di far uscire l'Europa dalla sanguinosa secca delle guerre di religione, che tanto assomigliano a quelle attuali? Forse proprio oggi Spinoza, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Beccaria tornano attuali.
La lettera sulla tolleranza è un testo breve, semplice e denso di significato, che può essere un ottimo punto di partenza per affrontare queste riflessioni: ammetto però di esserne stato in parte deluso. Le considerazioni sono giuste ed utili per rinfrescarsi il significato di tolleranza, e di recuperare il modo in cui deve essere guardato uno stato che vede vivere al suo interno il sentimento religioso: ma Locke non ha nè la sensibilità nè l'ansia di risposte (e forse neppure la potenza di pensiero) di Spinoza. Forse anche perchè uomo non perseguitato ma anzi molto colluso col potere anglicano che andava ricostituendosi, il suo scritto importantissimo non riesce a volare in alto, a liberarsi da un certo cinismo politico e da un realismo quotidiano che in parte lo relega al suo tempo.
Tutti noi dobbiamo comunque essere grati a John Locke, per ricordarci che "una nazione dove stato e chiesa non siano separati non potrà mai essere in pace", ma anche e soprattutto (e dovrebbero ricordarselo certi intellettuali radical-laicisti) che se un popolo rinuncia alla sua storia, alle sue tradizioni ed alla sua cultura (inclusa quella prte di essa che nasce dalla pratica religiosa) in nome di una improbabile democrazia culturale, sarà costretto a disintegrarsi ed ad assistere alla propria rovina.
Il grande politico e filosofo inglese che fu acerrimo nemico del Cattolicesimo e dell' Ateismo, sembra indicarci di pretendere che di fronte alle regole del vivere civile le religioni tacciano, ma anche di mostrare rispetto per cosa siamo e da dove veniamo, pena trovarci a non essere più nulla e nel nulla dissolverci.
Ancora una volta sangue versato in nome dell'ideologia o peggio di una truffaldina fede, ancora una volta strutture di potere di diabolica doppiezza che da un lato incitano l'odio delle masse contro il nemico culturale ed ideologico, dall' altro si arricchiscono tendendo la mano proprio a quel cosiddetto nemico; intere fasce sociali ormai incapaci di pensare in modo complesso costrette a vedere i suoi giovani consegnarsi di propria volontà ad astuti affabulatori o peggio: tutto ciò che conosciamo bene insomma.
Perchè dunque non ricominciare da capo, riaprendo gli scritti di coloro che hanno tentato in ogni modo di far uscire l'Europa dalla sanguinosa secca delle guerre di religione, che tanto assomigliano a quelle attuali? Forse proprio oggi Spinoza, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Beccaria tornano attuali.
La lettera sulla tolleranza è un testo breve, semplice e denso di significato, che può essere un ottimo punto di partenza per affrontare queste riflessioni: ammetto però di esserne stato in parte deluso. Le considerazioni sono giuste ed utili per rinfrescarsi il significato di tolleranza, e di recuperare il modo in cui deve essere guardato uno stato che vede vivere al suo interno il sentimento religioso: ma Locke non ha nè la sensibilità nè l'ansia di risposte (e forse neppure la potenza di pensiero) di Spinoza. Forse anche perchè uomo non perseguitato ma anzi molto colluso col potere anglicano che andava ricostituendosi, il suo scritto importantissimo non riesce a volare in alto, a liberarsi da un certo cinismo politico e da un realismo quotidiano che in parte lo relega al suo tempo.
Tutti noi dobbiamo comunque essere grati a John Locke, per ricordarci che "una nazione dove stato e chiesa non siano separati non potrà mai essere in pace", ma anche e soprattutto (e dovrebbero ricordarselo certi intellettuali radical-laicisti) che se un popolo rinuncia alla sua storia, alle sue tradizioni ed alla sua cultura (inclusa quella prte di essa che nasce dalla pratica religiosa) in nome di una improbabile democrazia culturale, sarà costretto a disintegrarsi ed ad assistere alla propria rovina.
Il grande politico e filosofo inglese che fu acerrimo nemico del Cattolicesimo e dell' Ateismo, sembra indicarci di pretendere che di fronte alle regole del vivere civile le religioni tacciano, ma anche di mostrare rispetto per cosa siamo e da dove veniamo, pena trovarci a non essere più nulla e nel nulla dissolverci.
January 30, 2019
من عميق الاسى والالم أن نجد كلاما ومحتوى كما هو موجود في هذا الكتاب، لمفكر توصل الى هذه الحقائق والنصائح منذ حوالي أربعة قرون مضت. إنه يتناول موضوع التسامح الديني، والتفريق بين الحكم المدني وسلطات الكنيسة ورجالها، ويوضح كيف انه من صالح المجتمع الفصل بين تلك السلطات.
من اين يأتي الأسى؟ من أنه هذا دليل على أننا على اقل الحدود متأخرون عن الغرب بأربعة قرون، بدليل أن هذا الكلام يعتبر جديدا في بيئتنا الشرق اوسطية، والى الان يقابل بالرفض والتحريض والتكفير، ويتهم اصحابه هنا بالعمالة وبتطبيق أجندة خارجية!! نعم إنه من المؤسف أن لدينا معارك كبيرة ونضال مرير أمامنا إن كنا نريد فعلا الالتحاق بركب الأمم والوصول الى تحقيق ظروف نحترم فيها بعضنا البعض، وتقدر فيها قيمة الانسان كأنسان.
من اين يأتي الأسى؟ من أنه هذا دليل على أننا على اقل الحدود متأخرون عن الغرب بأربعة قرون، بدليل أن هذا الكلام يعتبر جديدا في بيئتنا الشرق اوسطية، والى الان يقابل بالرفض والتحريض والتكفير، ويتهم اصحابه هنا بالعمالة وبتطبيق أجندة خارجية!! نعم إنه من المؤسف أن لدينا معارك كبيرة ونضال مرير أمامنا إن كنا نريد فعلا الالتحاق بركب الأمم والوصول الى تحقيق ظروف نحترم فيها بعضنا البعض، وتقدر فيها قيمة الانسان كأنسان.
March 8, 2012
كتاب جميل جداً.يدعو فيه جون لوك إلى التسامح الديني بين جميع الطوائف والأديان السماوية,وإن يجب علينا ألا نتهم المذاهب المخالفة بالهرطقة للمذهب السائد في أي دولة,بأنها هيَ بؤر لتفريخ الفتن وألوان العصيان.
و يرى إن هذه التهمة لن تكون لها أي مبرر إذا ما قام التسامح ، فان السبب في وجود دواعي الفتنة عند المخالفين هو ما يعانونه من اضطهاد من جانب المذهب السائد.ولهذا فانه متى ما زال الاضطهاد واستقر التسامح معهم ، زالت أسباب النوازع إلى الفتنة والعصيان.
ويرجح جون لوك أن أسباب التآمر والفتن هيَ من استبداد الحاكم ومحاباته لإتباعه ولبني دينه,ولو ان الحاكم اتبع النزاهة والإنصاف مع الرعية لما تآمروا عليه. فإن زعم الحاكم انه انما يفعل ما يفعل لأن هذا هو ما يقتضيه الصالح العام,بينما يقول المخالفون ان هذا ليس من الصالح العام.
مقتبسات من الكتاب :
الدين الحق لم يتأسس من أجل ممارسة الطقوس ولا من أجل ممارسة القهر,ولكن من أجل تنظيم حياة البشر استناداً إلى قواعد الفضيلة والتقوى .
لا أفراد ولا كنائس ولا دولة لديها أي مبرر للاعتداء على الحقوق المدنية والخيرات الدنيوية بدعوى الدين .أما الذين لا يرون هذا الرأي فإن عليهم أن يتأملوا أنفسهم وهي تزرع ,في البشرية,بذور النزاع والحرب ,وتثير الكراهية والنهب والسلب بلا حدود. فلا السلام ولا الأمان ,ولا الصداقة بين الناس ممكنة ومصانة طالما ساد الرأي القائل بأن الهيمنة مؤسسة على اللطف الإلهي وأن الدين لا ينتشر إلا بقوة السلاح .
ليس لأي إنسان السلطة في أن يفرض على إنسان آخر ما يجب عليه أن يؤمن به أو أن يفعله لأجل نجاة روحه هو، لان هذه المسالة شان خاص ولا يعني أي إنسان آخر.إن الله لم يمنح مثل هذه السلطة لأي إنسان ولا لأية جماعة ، ولا يمكن أي إنسان أن يعطيها لإنسان آخر فوقه إطلاقاً .
التجاء رجال الدين إلى السلطة المدنية في أمور الدين إنما يكشف عن أطماعهم هم في السيطرة الدنيوية,وهم بهذا يؤازرون من نوازع الطغيان عند الحاكم,والمشاهد على مدى التاريخ إن تحالف الحاكم مع رجال الدين كان دائماً لصالح طغيان الحاكم فهو الأقدر على التأثير فيهم، وليسوا هم قادرين على تقويمه ورده إلى السبيل القويم إن جنح إلى الظلم والاستبداد.
لكل انسان السلطة العليا المطلقة في الحكم لنفسه في أمور الدين.
حرية الضمير حق طبيعي لكل إنسان.
و يرى إن هذه التهمة لن تكون لها أي مبرر إذا ما قام التسامح ، فان السبب في وجود دواعي الفتنة عند المخالفين هو ما يعانونه من اضطهاد من جانب المذهب السائد.ولهذا فانه متى ما زال الاضطهاد واستقر التسامح معهم ، زالت أسباب النوازع إلى الفتنة والعصيان.
ويرجح جون لوك أن أسباب التآمر والفتن هيَ من استبداد الحاكم ومحاباته لإتباعه ولبني دينه,ولو ان الحاكم اتبع النزاهة والإنصاف مع الرعية لما تآمروا عليه. فإن زعم الحاكم انه انما يفعل ما يفعل لأن هذا هو ما يقتضيه الصالح العام,بينما يقول المخالفون ان هذا ليس من الصالح العام.
مقتبسات من الكتاب :
الدين الحق لم يتأسس من أجل ممارسة الطقوس ولا من أجل ممارسة القهر,ولكن من أجل تنظيم حياة البشر استناداً إلى قواعد الفضيلة والتقوى .
لا أفراد ولا كنائس ولا دولة لديها أي مبرر للاعتداء على الحقوق المدنية والخيرات الدنيوية بدعوى الدين .أما الذين لا يرون هذا الرأي فإن عليهم أن يتأملوا أنفسهم وهي تزرع ,في البشرية,بذور النزاع والحرب ,وتثير الكراهية والنهب والسلب بلا حدود. فلا السلام ولا الأمان ,ولا الصداقة بين الناس ممكنة ومصانة طالما ساد الرأي القائل بأن الهيمنة مؤسسة على اللطف الإلهي وأن الدين لا ينتشر إلا بقوة السلاح .
ليس لأي إنسان السلطة في أن يفرض على إنسان آخر ما يجب عليه أن يؤمن به أو أن يفعله لأجل نجاة روحه هو، لان هذه المسالة شان خاص ولا يعني أي إنسان آخر.إن الله لم يمنح مثل هذه السلطة لأي إنسان ولا لأية جماعة ، ولا يمكن أي إنسان أن يعطيها لإنسان آخر فوقه إطلاقاً .
التجاء رجال الدين إلى السلطة المدنية في أمور الدين إنما يكشف عن أطماعهم هم في السيطرة الدنيوية,وهم بهذا يؤازرون من نوازع الطغيان عند الحاكم,والمشاهد على مدى التاريخ إن تحالف الحاكم مع رجال الدين كان دائماً لصالح طغيان الحاكم فهو الأقدر على التأثير فيهم، وليسوا هم قادرين على تقويمه ورده إلى السبيل القويم إن جنح إلى الظلم والاستبداد.
لكل انسان السلطة العليا المطلقة في الحكم لنفسه في أمور الدين.
حرية الضمير حق طبيعي لكل إنسان.
August 19, 2021
جون لوك كتب هذا الكتاب في القرن الخامس عشر وهو يتكلم عن التسامح الديني ، خصوصا التسامح بين اطياف الديانات المسيحية الواحدة ... وانه لا يجب قتل الاخر او تكفيره ... وان عباده الله وخلاص النفوس هي من شأن الفرد وحده وأن الله وحده مطلع على قلوب البشر وسيحاسبها على ما كسبت قلوبها .. ونحن اليوم في سنة ٢٠٢١ .. مازلنا نتكلم عن نجاسة الكلب ووسوسة الوضوء والصور التي تمنع دخول الملائكة البيوت والسحر والشعوذة وجعلها قضايا اساسية تشغل الفرد عن تحقيق تطوره واحساسه الدائم انه ذاهب الى جهنم لا محالة .. اتمنى ان نرجع الى القرآن الكريم ومبادئ التسامح والدعوة الى الحياة البسيطة التي تحقق سعادة الفرد والمجتمع لان الله يقول "ما أنزلنا عليك القران لتشقى" ... فنحن اليوم نشقى في الفتاوى العقيمة التي لن تقدم ولن تؤخر وجعل رجال الدين اوصياء علينا في كل شيء وهو ما ارفضه تماما.
September 10, 2013
I really enjoyed this, although it wasn't as much an eye opener for me because much of the stuff we all widely accept now. His arguments though, still to this day hold a lot of ground, but some don't. His view on Atheists, is one view where I would say his Logic definitely breaks down, whether due to a possible fear of consequences for supporting freedom for atheists or just a complete unfair bias against them, it definitely left an awkward hole in his "toleration" logic.
September 18, 2016
كان فكر جون لوك عموماً خطوة فى طريق الإنسانية إلى المجتمع المدنى أما رسالته فى التسامح بشكل خاص فهى بالنسبة لعصرها كانت تعد قضية العصر وسبقها آلاف الرسائل فى ذات الموضوع فى القرن الذى سبقها فقط أما القضية موضع النقاش فهى قديمة قدم الإنسانية ذاتها وكعادة الإنسان فى قضاياه يظل يدور ويبحث ولا يعطى إلا بعض الحلول المؤقتة .
لم يكن الفكر الإلحادى المميز للقرن الثامن عشر فى أوروبا قد إتخذ شكله او إكتسب قاعدته الكبيرة فى أيام لوك ورغم أن إنتقاد الكنيسة قد بلغ مداه فى هذه الفترة والعقود السابقة لها إلا أن تعلق الفكر الأوروبى بالمسيحية لا يزال واضحا فى كتابات فلاسفة القرن السابع عشر فى دفاعهم عن المسيحية ومحاولة تبرئتها من كل ما ينسب إليها من تحريفات أو من سلوك رجال كنيستها ودولتها وفى الدفاع عن قضايا العدل والتسامح والحرية تحت مظلة المسيح والكتاب المقدس ولايزال فكر أهم رجال هذا العصر مشوشاً فى حديثهم عن حقوق أبناء الديانات الأخرى خصوصا المسلمين واليهود وبعضهم يفضل الوثنيين عليهم وبعضهم يفضلهم على الوثنيين غير أنهم إتفقواجميعا على قتال الإلحاد وإضطهاد الملحد من حيث أنه لا يمكن الوثوق فى أى مجتمع مدنى بشخص لا مبدأ أخلاقى يحكمه ومن حيث أنه لا يمكنه أن يعطى أى يمين للولاء لمجتمعه .
ويشعر القارىء بمدى خصوصية الرسالة الزمنية والمكانية من حيث مناقشة الكاتب لجوانب القضية فى إطار زمنه - القرن السابع عشر- ومكانه فى إنجلترا وأوروبا بوجه عام أيام حروب ما بعد الإصلاحالدينى وما تسبب فيه من حروب أهليه وحروب خارجية بين الدول آنذاك. لذلك فهى لم تكن رسالة إنسانية عامة وشاملة وهى غي مجدية إلا لمن يقرأ فى تاريخ الفكر أو تاريخ الإصلاح الدينى أو تاريخ التسامح بشكل منهجى حتى يتمكن من تفهم جوانب النقاش دونا عن غيرها مما لم يتم مناقشته وحتى يستطيع التغلب على الملل الذى سينتابه رغم صغر الكتيب إن لم يكن أحد هذه المواضيع ضمن إهتماماته المعرفية .
لم يكن الفكر الإلحادى المميز للقرن الثامن عشر فى أوروبا قد إتخذ شكله او إكتسب قاعدته الكبيرة فى أيام لوك ورغم أن إنتقاد الكنيسة قد بلغ مداه فى هذه الفترة والعقود السابقة لها إلا أن تعلق الفكر الأوروبى بالمسيحية لا يزال واضحا فى كتابات فلاسفة القرن السابع عشر فى دفاعهم عن المسيحية ومحاولة تبرئتها من كل ما ينسب إليها من تحريفات أو من سلوك رجال كنيستها ودولتها وفى الدفاع عن قضايا العدل والتسامح والحرية تحت مظلة المسيح والكتاب المقدس ولايزال فكر أهم رجال هذا العصر مشوشاً فى حديثهم عن حقوق أبناء الديانات الأخرى خصوصا المسلمين واليهود وبعضهم يفضل الوثنيين عليهم وبعضهم يفضلهم على الوثنيين غير أنهم إتفقواجميعا على قتال الإلحاد وإضطهاد الملحد من حيث أنه لا يمكن الوثوق فى أى مجتمع مدنى بشخص لا مبدأ أخلاقى يحكمه ومن حيث أنه لا يمكنه أن يعطى أى يمين للولاء لمجتمعه .
ويشعر القارىء بمدى خصوصية الرسالة الزمنية والمكانية من حيث مناقشة الكاتب لجوانب القضية فى إطار زمنه - القرن السابع عشر- ومكانه فى إنجلترا وأوروبا بوجه عام أيام حروب ما بعد الإصلاحالدينى وما تسبب فيه من حروب أهليه وحروب خارجية بين الدول آنذاك. لذلك فهى لم تكن رسالة إنسانية عامة وشاملة وهى غي مجدية إلا لمن يقرأ فى تاريخ الفكر أو تاريخ الإصلاح الدينى أو تاريخ التسامح بشكل منهجى حتى يتمكن من تفهم جوانب النقاش دونا عن غيرها مما لم يتم مناقشته وحتى يستطيع التغلب على الملل الذى سينتابه رغم صغر الكتيب إن لم يكن أحد هذه المواضيع ضمن إهتماماته المعرفية .
September 29, 2013
إن وجود كتاب للفيلسوف الأنجليزي جون لوك بمقدمة من العظيم والفيلسوف ورائد التنويريين المعاصرين مراد وهبة له كتاب يستحق الإحتفاء به ..
يأخذنا جون لوك في رسالة ملهمة ورائعة يرسلها إلى جيمس الثاني يتحدث له فيها عن التسامح الديني وأنه ليس من حق أي أحد أن يقتحم بإسم الدين الحقوق المدنية ويضطهد الآخريين ، هذه الرسالة أشبه بالملحمة ، فمن خلالها نتعلم مفهوم الدولة المدنية ، وأساس العقد الإجتماعي الذي صاغه جون لوك ، والتسامح ، وكيف أن الحقيقة المطلقة تقف عائقاً أمام تقبل الآخر والسلم الإجتماعي ..
الجدير بالذكر أن جون لوك هو أحد منظري الدولة المدنية ، وكان له دور غير مباشر في الثورة الأمريكية إذ أن كتابه ((رسالتان في الحكم)) محط إعجاب كبير وساهم في وضع لبنات دولة المواطنة في أمريكا ..
عيب هذا الكتاب الوحيد أنه قصير وينتهي بسرعة ..
February 23, 2017
رسالة لوك في التسامح هي رسالة للم شمل وبث التوافق و التسامح بين الطوائف المسيحية المختلفة.
وأعتقد بأن رسالته هذه جاءت كرد فعل على الحروب التي فتكت بالدول المعتنقة للديانة المسيحية في أوروبا و بريطانيا.
للأسف لم يشمل لوك في رسالته الملاحدة و الكفرة ممن لم يصدقوا بالانجيل على حد وصفه.
برغم ذلك تعتبر هذه الرسالة بداية جيدة في مسيرة فصل الدين عن الدولة.
وأعتقد بأن رسالته هذه جاءت كرد فعل على الحروب التي فتكت بالدول المعتنقة للديانة المسيحية في أوروبا و بريطانيا.
للأسف لم يشمل لوك في رسالته الملاحدة و الكفرة ممن لم يصدقوا بالانجيل على حد وصفه.
برغم ذلك تعتبر هذه الرسالة بداية جيدة في مسيرة فصل الدين عن الدولة.
August 15, 2019
Bu akılcılık, bu rasyonellik, bu bakış açısı, bu sivil hayatı koruma çabası bizim coğrafyamıza da gelecek mi? John Locke yaklaşık 350 sene önce, hoşgörüyü din ve devlet arasındaki öyle bir noktada konumlandırmış ve öyle bir vizyon penceresi açmış ki Avrupa’ya, sanırım bu bakış açısı modern medeniyetin ve sivil hayatın hala daha temelini oluşturuyor. Bu sadece biraz uzun mektubu herkesin okuması gerekir diye düşünüyorum..
April 2, 2019
إن التسامح هو نقضيه عدم التسامح او بمعنى ادق ( التعصب ) علينا ان نبحث عن جذور التعصب والتي اصلها " التابو " والتي تعني المعتقدات الغير حية التي عزلت عن العالم وأصبحت " مقدسة " حتى نستطيع ان نصل الى التسامح .
February 27, 2022
2022-02-27
A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke was originally published in 1689. John Locke was an influential philosopher of the 17th century.
In this book he argues about the separation of church and state. And the need to tolerate different religions - but he is against atheist. All in all a sensible and historically important work.
A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke was originally published in 1689. John Locke was an influential philosopher of the 17th century.
In this book he argues about the separation of church and state. And the need to tolerate different religions - but he is against atheist. All in all a sensible and historically important work.
April 4, 2023
I have to credit for John Locke for precipitating liberalism, by providing in A Letter Concerning Toleration what is probably the first case for abstract religious liberty. His few decent arguments are of the pragmatic nature (tolerance is likely to cause less violence and make religious dissenters patriotic citizens), but such arguments were argued elsewhere and did not entail what Locke was advocating. To defend his view, Locke synthesises not just poor, but destructive reasoning.
He first falsely equates tolerance with Christian charity, seeming to ignore not just the zeal of the prophets but Christ cleansing of the Temple. His argument employs the motte-and-bailey tactic of conflating the excessive brutality of persecution at the time (of course making the mute hypocrisy argument) with religious favouritism in general. His argument that punishment of religious dissent in contrary to the virtue of Love would render any Christian incapable of enacting the legal system altogether. Ironically, it is Locke's insistence that we not do not possess the legal capacity to better the virtue of our fellow man that strikes as most contrary to Christian charity, as if someone's self imposed misery is not my political concern if it does not affect me.
Second, Locke argues that intolerance would not bring about conversion because any profession of orthodox belief would be insincere. While this argument is itself tentative, it misses the wider point that religious laws are more about containing heresy by preventing them from spreading their beliefs (which evidence shows it is clearly successful at doing).
Third, Locke relies on his very poor understanding of the origin and the duty of the state: that it exist to preserve liberty and not edify mans souls and he uses the reasoning to wholly separate church from state. This fails to recognise the the flourishing of the state (and the preservation of liberties) depends on the virtue of its citizens, furthermore while Locke supports enforcing morality he does not consider that mans morals may depend on what they believe. Contrary to the principle that 'grace does not destroy nature, but fulfils it', Locke's reasoning seems to be based on a flawed understanding of religion which is wholly detached from our reality whereby the spiritual and temporal god bears no meaningful relation with one another.
Finally, and most egregious we see Locke is the precursor to the David French mindset. Arguing that if some state enforce the true faith, what if other states enforce a false faith. Here we see the most corrosive aspect of Locke's reasoning: relativism. He observes multiple times that everyone is 'orthodox unto themselves' as if by reason we could not make any determination regarding the true faith. It is unsurprising that the triumph of liberalism has preempted the rise of religious indifferentism, for it naturally follows. Accepting the argument that persecution is bad because the right faith may be persecuted would lead us to conclude that any form of coercion is unacceptable. If we allow the state to make laws, they may pass unjust laws, besides 'who is to say which law is just' since every ideologue is moral unto himself.
After following this line of argument, Locke backtracks with the biggest loophole of allowing the state to persecute religions that harm the temporal order (allowing him to argue that Islam, Catholicism and atheism should be restricted). If he followed through with this he may realise that it could be applied to any religious belief and completely eliminate what he was advocating. Of course the only beliefs it turns out that should be tolerated besides Anglicanism are Protestant dissenters (of which Locke himself was), which is ironic considering how Locke himself observes that religious tolerance is generally cynically employed as a power grab by adherents of a powerless faith.
In conclusion, this text deserves little merit solely for its impact on the world and the handful of moderately positive arguments, otherwise note that much of the decline of modernity into relativism can be blamed on Mr John Locke and his atrocious arguments.
He first falsely equates tolerance with Christian charity, seeming to ignore not just the zeal of the prophets but Christ cleansing of the Temple. His argument employs the motte-and-bailey tactic of conflating the excessive brutality of persecution at the time (of course making the mute hypocrisy argument) with religious favouritism in general. His argument that punishment of religious dissent in contrary to the virtue of Love would render any Christian incapable of enacting the legal system altogether. Ironically, it is Locke's insistence that we not do not possess the legal capacity to better the virtue of our fellow man that strikes as most contrary to Christian charity, as if someone's self imposed misery is not my political concern if it does not affect me.
Second, Locke argues that intolerance would not bring about conversion because any profession of orthodox belief would be insincere. While this argument is itself tentative, it misses the wider point that religious laws are more about containing heresy by preventing them from spreading their beliefs (which evidence shows it is clearly successful at doing).
Third, Locke relies on his very poor understanding of the origin and the duty of the state: that it exist to preserve liberty and not edify mans souls and he uses the reasoning to wholly separate church from state. This fails to recognise the the flourishing of the state (and the preservation of liberties) depends on the virtue of its citizens, furthermore while Locke supports enforcing morality he does not consider that mans morals may depend on what they believe. Contrary to the principle that 'grace does not destroy nature, but fulfils it', Locke's reasoning seems to be based on a flawed understanding of religion which is wholly detached from our reality whereby the spiritual and temporal god bears no meaningful relation with one another.
Finally, and most egregious we see Locke is the precursor to the David French mindset. Arguing that if some state enforce the true faith, what if other states enforce a false faith. Here we see the most corrosive aspect of Locke's reasoning: relativism. He observes multiple times that everyone is 'orthodox unto themselves' as if by reason we could not make any determination regarding the true faith. It is unsurprising that the triumph of liberalism has preempted the rise of religious indifferentism, for it naturally follows. Accepting the argument that persecution is bad because the right faith may be persecuted would lead us to conclude that any form of coercion is unacceptable. If we allow the state to make laws, they may pass unjust laws, besides 'who is to say which law is just' since every ideologue is moral unto himself.
After following this line of argument, Locke backtracks with the biggest loophole of allowing the state to persecute religions that harm the temporal order (allowing him to argue that Islam, Catholicism and atheism should be restricted). If he followed through with this he may realise that it could be applied to any religious belief and completely eliminate what he was advocating. Of course the only beliefs it turns out that should be tolerated besides Anglicanism are Protestant dissenters (of which Locke himself was), which is ironic considering how Locke himself observes that religious tolerance is generally cynically employed as a power grab by adherents of a powerless faith.
In conclusion, this text deserves little merit solely for its impact on the world and the handful of moderately positive arguments, otherwise note that much of the decline of modernity into relativism can be blamed on Mr John Locke and his atrocious arguments.
Read
June 29, 2020جان لاک در این اثر به دفاع از حق آزادی همه ادیان و فرقههلی مذهبی میپردازد و توضیح نیدهد که اعمال مذهبی افراد نباید مستوجب عقوبت مدنی آنها شود. وی به شرح این میپردازد که چرا حکومت باید مستقل از کلیسای تحت حمایت حکومت باشد. لازم به ذکر است که از نظر لاک این تساهل را فقط شامل دینداران و خداباوران است و معتقد است که «روی برتافتن از خداوند، اگر چه حتی در ذهن و اندیشه باشد، همهوعدهها، میثاقها و سوگندها را بیاعتبار میکند»
Displaying 1 - 30 of 253 reviews