John Locke's Arguments For Religious Toleration

Jonas Proast was a critic of John Locke’s arguments for religious toleration. Locke argued for religious toleration by arguing it is irrational to change a person’s views through force, just because one has political authority does not mean one is all knowing when it comes to religion, and religion has to be a part of the mandate that the people delegate to the government. Proast claimed that force affects belief, the one in power is using his or her judgment in teaching the correct religious belief, and people give the government that authority because the government saves you from the state of nature. Proast’s arguments for force, religious authority, and people giving the monarch authority of religion were weak compared to Locke’s arguments of irrationality, political incompetence, and the absent mandate.
The first argument of Proast was that force can …show more content…
Once the first generation reluctantly claims these beliefs and teaches them to the next generations, where does one draw the line between profound beliefs and conditioned beliefs? To wholeheartedly believe in something one must undergo a deep process of questioning. While being forced by law, there is not much power to actually accept the belief system. To form one’s beliefs, one must consciously think about current beliefs and apply it to life to see if their beliefs actually serve them well. They must also challenge their beliefs or be open to opposing arguments for a more nuance belief system. If one is going through the motions of being in the church assigned to them that does not actually mean they believe it. It has just become a habit. To believe in something one must have faith and accept it, but if someone with contradicting views began questioning these people their “beliefs” would fall apart due to never thinking deeper into what they’ve been told, therefore proving that force did not cause them to truly