John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
This past week saw the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats in Libya, while a fresh wave of riots and attacks on American embassies and schools took place throughout the Islamic world, from North Africa to South Asia.
Clearly, the so-called Arab Spring is in disarray as intolerance rises rapidly throughout the region.
What the Islamist protesters need right now--as I argue in my weekly column for Defining Ideas--is a dose of John Locke, who picked the right word—“toleration”—in his famous 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration. It takes no courage to allow the expression of views that echo one’s own, but it takes a good deal of it to tolerate the propagation of ideas that challenge one’s own deepest ideals. As Locke knew, religious intolerance is incompatible with democracy. I explain further over at Defining Ideas.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
Religious intolerance is perfectly compatible with democracy.
The majority simply vote to get their government to make anyone a criminal, who says bad things about a religious figure whom most members of the democracy consider sacred, on the grounds that it constitutes an unfounded and intolerable historical libel.
Legal sanctions can then be applied to such "criminals" following a set of fair, standard procedures.
Religious intolerance is only incompatible with liberty, not with democracy.
This is because democracy necessarily entails a restriction of the liberty of some. It is, essentially, the rule of the few, over the many, at the indirect behest of most of the many.
If you are ruled, then your liberty is restricted. That is what "rule" means.
There is absolutely no reason why democratically determined restrictions on liberty, supported by a majority, and enforced by a government, should not entail the legal barring of particular religious speech, thereby silencing members of the minority.
Members of that minority would be ruled by the majority via the government, and, if they rebelled against that rule, be subjected to due process and legal sanction
You can support democracy and be a religious bigot. You just can't support liberty.
Edited on September 18, 2012 at 3:49pmSep '12
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
When do we Westerners just cut ties with the Muslim world altogether? It is becoming more clear -- daily, that we can never totally reconcile with them, as long as the extremists are in charge - and the moderates are intimidated into silence.
If we are only going to get blamed by the extremists (and our Western leftists) for supposedly provoking the hatred, why not just cut and run? I know the left will dig up something from the Crusades as a pretext to the 'Why do they hate us?' nonsense; but at least the 'we are forcing our values on them' argument could be put to rest.
Baby steps.
Jun '12
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
"What the Islamist protesters need right now--as I argue in my weekly column for Defining Ideas--is a dose of John Locke"
and, (from your column)
"religious observers must unquestioningly follow a complex set of rules, which prevents their exposure during schooling to intellectual and social influences from the outside that might temper their views."
But, since it is a Fundamentalist Religion, by that definition, they won't get a dose of Toleration via Locke or any other thinkers, and even if they do, they seem to think it a sign of weakness to tolerate other ideas.
I don't think reason will do anything to change the situation we find our world in.
Mar '12
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
Toleration and Islam are incompatible. The Koran is quite explicit. Muslims are to force all infidels to convert or submit as second class citizens. The only alternative is death.
And remember, "There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. " http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm
The only truly tolerant Muslims are those who have absorbed the concept from the Judeo-Christian culture they live in.
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
I would suggest that one is living in what Machiavelli called an "imaginary principality" if one actually believes that a reading of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration would alter the politics of the Middle East or North Africa.
May '10
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
I agree with John Grant. Locke came from the Judeo/Christian tradition. His work was readily received by those raised in that tradition—a tradition that recognized such things as
1) The worth and dignity of each and every human person
2) The fallen condition of humanity
3) The value of reasoning and the imperfections of mere reasoning
4) The problem of power
5) The rejection of relativism and positivistic, ends-justify-the-means moral systems.
Culture precedes policy. Zealous Islamists are evidently contemptuous of, not impressed by, the ideal of tolerance. They don't seek peace, they seek submission. And death.
We'll need to meet the challenge they present with stronger measures than John Locke, IMO.
Edited on September 18, 2012 at 5:13pmMar '11
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
The Professor needs to get out more.
Whereas all the commenters nailed it.
Re: John Locke's Lesson for the Arab World
The piece in Defining Ideas does not do justice to Locke's argument. Locke has a list of things he said society cannot tolerate, such as atheism and "doctrines adverse and contrary to human society, or to the good morals that are necessary for the preservation of civil society . . . ." He didn't think "promiscuous debauchery" was alright either.