A Letter Concerning Separation?
In A Letter Concerning Toleration Locke argues that the church and the state must be separated, because the hearts of the functions don’t overlap. Some may say that since the question itself says: “or do the functions… overlap” to which the obvious answer is yes, then it is an automatic non-separation. I argue that the heart of the functions are separate. I see this for the following reasons: first, that Locke says that Religion is not to be propagated by force of Arms (33). Secondly, he states that the church is to remain a free and voluntary society (31). Finally he argues that the Care of Souls is committed to God, and not the authority of man (26). First Locke says that Religion should not be promoted by force. “The business of True Religion… is not the exercising of compulsive force (23).” This is the most important idea concerning whether …show more content…
No matter what argument you analyze or overanalyze, Locke hinges everything on the biggest policies of what make a church and a state separate. The three points discussed above show that Locke argues for separation of church and state, because the hearts of the functions don’t overlap. Others may hold that the mere existence of overlap acknowledged by Locke means they aren’t separate. However, the presentation of church and state with completely different goals, values, and operations is a clear indicator of how Locke truly feels. Which is that the separation is not only necessary, but practically unavoidable. Locke shows that separation of church and state is his best solution to the problems he sees, whether it be intolerance, men with soul-related needs, or men who need state sponsored correction. Locke separates church and state to provide the best for
In A Letter Concerning Toleration Locke argues that the church and the state must be separated, because the hearts of the functions don’t overlap. Some may say that since the question itself says: “or do the functions… overlap” to which the obvious answer is yes, then it is an automatic non-separation. I argue that the heart of the functions are separate. I see this for the following reasons: first, that Locke says that Religion is not to be propagated by force of Arms (33). Secondly, he states that the church is to remain a free and voluntary society (31). Finally he argues that the Care of Souls is committed to God, and not the authority of man (26). First Locke says that Religion should not be promoted by force. “The business of True Religion… is not the exercising of compulsive force (23).” This is the most important idea concerning whether …show more content…
No matter what argument you analyze or overanalyze, Locke hinges everything on the biggest policies of what make a church and a state separate. The three points discussed above show that Locke argues for separation of church and state, because the hearts of the functions don’t overlap. Others may hold that the mere existence of overlap acknowledged by Locke means they aren’t separate. However, the presentation of church and state with completely different goals, values, and operations is a clear indicator of how Locke truly feels. Which is that the separation is not only necessary, but practically unavoidable. Locke shows that separation of church and state is his best solution to the problems he sees, whether it be intolerance, men with soul-related needs, or men who need state sponsored correction. Locke separates church and state to provide the best for