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?The argument on which Proast fixates, and which Jeremy Waldron also spotlighted in a well-known article, can be stated as follows: authentic religious belief is necessary for salvation; such belief comes about when a person accepts the truth through his or her own mental illumination; that inner light cannot be forced.
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.
This debate cannot be resolved through a coming to terms with whether force is useful or not; that is not the cause of contention, but a proxy for the real clash.