Thus, commentators continue to pose a variety of questions about the nature of Locke's argument(s) for toleration: How limited or powerful is the political domain when wielding tolerant policies?
Does Locke offer a primarily pragmatic defense of this value?
All phenomena in the world are interpreted through that imperative.
Noticeably, the editor chooses to conclude Proast's final excerpt with the following unbudging perspective: any magistrate may believe his own false religion to be the true …
Identity politics in western societies, the collapse of communism, and the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world led scholars and the public to focus on sources available for managing, if not solving, deep conflicts.
A new interest in the origins of liberalism and toleration specifically has been the result.
What we see in the course of their polemic is Proast digging in to restate the devotional point of view and Locke expanding to deploy a variety of counter-arguments that put other kinds of imperatives on the table.
That is, we perceive illustrated in their debate a head-to-head confrontation between devotional and secular modes of argumentation.
Is he more concerned with the irrationality of persecution than the rights of religious minorities?
How does the social contract argument of the in isolation.