The Limits of Tolerance Enlightenment

Values and Religious Fanaticism Denis

Lacorne
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-limits-of-tolerance-enlightenment-values-and-relig
ious-fanaticism-denis-lacorne/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Psychology of Tolerance Conception and Development

Rivka T. Witenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-psychology-of-tolerance-
conception-and-development-rivka-t-witenberg/

The Social Psychology of Tolerance 1st Edition

Verkuyten

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-social-psychology-of-
tolerance-1st-edition-verkuyten/

Psychology of Success Denis Waitley

https://textbookfull.com/product/psychology-of-success-denis-
waitley/

Fanaticism, Racism, and Rage Online: Corrupting the

Digital Sphere 1st Edition Adam Klein (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/fanaticism-racism-and-rage-
online-corrupting-the-digital-sphere-1st-edition-adam-klein-auth/
The Enlightenment of Bees 1st Edition Rachel Linden

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-enlightenment-of-bees-1st-
edition-rachel-linden/

Lived Religion and the Politics of (In)Tolerance 1st

Edition R. Ruard Ganzevoort

https://textbookfull.com/product/lived-religion-and-the-politics-
of-intolerance-1st-edition-r-ruard-ganzevoort/

The Economics of Values Ideals and Organizations

Luigino Bruni

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-economics-of-values-ideals-
and-organizations-luigino-bruni/

The Genocide against the Tutsi and the Rwandan Churches

Philippe Denis

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-genocide-against-the-tutsi-
and-the-rwandan-churches-philippe-denis/

Ethics Beyond the Limits New Essays on Bernard Williams

Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy Sophie Grace
Chappell

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-beyond-the-limits-new-
essays-on-bernard-williams-ethics-and-the-limits-of-philosophy-
sophie-grace-chappell/
THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE
ENLIGHTENMENT VALUES AND RELIGIOUS FANATICISM

DENIS LACORNE
 THE LIMITS OF
TOLERANCE

R ELI G I O N , C U LT U R E , A N D P U B LI C LI F E
 RELIGION, CULTURE, AND PUBLIC LIFE

Series Editor: Katherine Pratt Ewing

The resurgence of religion calls for careful analysis and constructive criti-
cism of new forms of intolerance, as well as new approaches to tolerance,
respect, mutual understanding, and accommodation. In order to promote
serious scholarship and informed debate, the Institute for Religion, Cul-
ture, and Public Life and Columbia University Press are sponsoring a book
series devoted to the investigation of the role of religion in society and cul-
ture today. This series includes works by scholars in religious studies, polit-
ical science, history, cultural anthropology, economics, social psychology,
and other allied fields whose work sustains multidisciplinary and compara-
tive as well as transnational analyses of historical and contemporary issues.
The series focuses on issues related to questions of difference, identity, and
practice within local, national, and international contexts. Special atten-
tion is paid to the ways in which religious traditions encourage conflict, vio-
lence, and intolerance and also support human rights, ecumenical values,
and mutual understanding. By mediating alternative methodologies and dif-
ferent religious, social, and cultural traditions, books published in this
series will open channels of communication that facilitate critical analysis.

For the list of titles in this series, see page 281.

 THE LIMITS OF
TOLER A NCE
EN LI G H T EN M EN T VA LU E S
A N D R ELI G I O U S
FA NAT I C I S M

DENIS LACORNE

TRANSLATED BY

C. JON DELOGU
AND ROBIN EMLEIN

Columbia University Press New York

 Columbia University Press
Publishers Since 1893
New York Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu
Les frontières de la tolérance © 2016 Editions Gallimard, Paris
English translation copyright © 2019 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lacorne, Denis, author.
Title: The limits of tolerance : enlightenment values and religious fanaticism /
Denis Lacorne ; translated by C. Jon Delogu and Robin Emlein.
Other titles: Frontieres de la tolerance. English
Description: New York : Columbia University Press, 2019. | Series: Religion,
culture, and public life | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018038374 (print) | LCCN 2018059537 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780231547048 (e-book) | ISBN 9780231187145 (cloth : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Toleration—History. | Religious tolerance—History. |
Freedom of religion—History. | Freedom of speech—History.
Classification: LCC BJ1432 (ebook) | LCC BJ1432 .L3313 2019 (print) |
DDC 179/.9— dc23
LC record available at https: //lccn.loc.gov/2018038374

Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent

and durable acid-free paper.
Printed in the United States of America

Cover image: St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, c. 1572-84 (oil on panel),

Dubois, Francois (1529–1584) / Musee Cantonal des Beaux-Arts de Lausanne,
Switzerland / De Agostini Picture Library / G. Dagli Orti / Bridgeman Images

Cover design: Chang Jae Lee

Columbia University Press gratefully acknowledges
the generous contribution to this book provided by
the Florence Gould Foundation Endowment Fund
for French Translation.
To the memory of Tony Judt and Al Stepan

1
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments xi

New Introduction for the American Edition 1

1 Tolerance According to John Locke 11
2 Voltaire and Modern Tolerance 31
3 Tolerance in America 45
4 Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire 67
5 Tolerance in Venice 87
6 On Blasphemy 103
7 Multicultural Tolerance 135
8 Of Veils and Unveiling 157
9 New Restrictions, New Forms of Tolerance 173
10 Should We Tolerate the Enemies of Tolerance? 197
Epilogue for the American Edition: Tolerance
in the Age of Terrorism 209

Notes 219
Index 263
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T
he ideas behind this book emerged from a stay at
Columbia University’s newly created Institute for Reli-
gion, Culture, and Public Life in the spring of 2008
(supported by an Alliance grant) and a visiting fellowship at the
Stanford Humanities Center in the winter of 2013. At Columbia
I was fortunate to participate in a seminar, Challenges to Diverse
Models of Secularism in the United States, France, and Turkey,
co-organized with Al Stepan and Ahmet Kuru. While at Colum-
bia, I had the chance to engage in numerous thought-provoking
conversations with Al Stepan and Mark Lilla.
At Stanford I was able to develop my reflection on the man-
agement of religious symbols in the public square, centered on
current debates about the permission or prohibition of Islamic
veils. Stimulating discussions were provided by my Stanford col-
leagues, in particular Aron Rodrigue, Jack Rakove, and Keith
Baker in the History Department; Michael McConnell, Richard
Ford, and Avishai Margalit at the Stanford Law School; Cécile
Alduy, Dan Edelstein, and Marie-Pierre Ulloa in the Division
of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages; Charlotte Fonrobert
in the Department of Religious Studies; and Bruce Cain, David
Brady, and Mo Fiorina in the Political Science Department.
 xii Y Acknowledgments

Generous support from the France-Stanford Center for Inter-

disciplinary Study allowed me to run an international conference,
The New Politics of Church/State Relations, in December 2015.
I am grateful to Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, an international lawyer
who then taught at Stanford Law School, for his help in preparing
and co-organizing this conference.
Back in France, many of the ideas tested in this bicoastal
American environment were further developed in a three-year
research seminar, Religion and Globalization, which I conducted
at the CERI–Sciences Po with Joseph Maïla (then director of
“CAPS,” the policy planning staff of the French Ministry of For-
eign Affairs) and Jean-Paul Willaime (then director of the
Institut Européen en Science des Religions). Participants in this
seminar generated lively discussions and provided an exceptional
comparative and global perspective, and this book has greatly
benefited from their contributions. A conference on “Religion
and Foreign Policy” concluded the seminar on November 5–6,
2013. The proceedings of the conference were published under
the title La diplomatie au défi des religions (Paris: Odile Jacob,
2014). I wish to thank the co-organizers of the conference (and
coeditors of the book), Justin Vaïsse and Jean-Paul Willaime, for
their enthusiastic support.
I am also particularly grateful to the successive directors of
the CERI—Jean-François Bayart, Christophe Jaffrelot, Chris-
tian Lequesne, and Alain Dieckhoff—who supported my
research and allowed me to expand its scope beyond the narrow
field of American politics.
I could not have written this book without the constant,
challenging, and stimulating discussions with my wife, Maria
Ruegg, and with the invaluable help, critical comments, and
friendly support of my two editors—Ran Halévi at Gallimard
and Wendy Lochner at Columbia University Press.
 Acknowledgments Z xiii

This book is dedicated to the memory of Tony Judt and Al

Stepan—two great friends and mentors who knew that good
research cannot be restricted to a single scholarly discipline. They
both understood that history, to be meaningful, must be long-
term history and that political science and political philosophy
gain much from a genuine comparative perspective.
 NEW INTRODUCTION FOR THE
AMERICAN EDITION

T
here are numerous historical examples of religious
tolerance, from ancient Greece to the Roman Empire,
medieval Spain to the Ottoman Empire and the Vene-
tian Republic. But, generally speaking, these are not examples
of tolerance in the modern sense of the term. They are rather
examples of “toleration”: systems in which diverse religions are
“suffered” for the sake of keeping the peace. The Latin root for
toleration, tolerantia, is derived from the verb tolerare: to accept,
endure, put up with, support with courage a burden or a diffi-
cult condition of life.1 Tolerance in this sense is commonly asso-
ciated with a political act, something that is within the power of
a ruler to impose or refuse to allow, such as the coexistence of
established and minority religions.2
Today, however, tolerance is more often understood as the
welcoming acceptance of a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints
where diverse communities respect one another and act collec-
tively for the common good. This modern concept of tolerance
began to emerge in the Age of Enlightenment and is closely asso-
ciated with Enlightenment values, in particular, freedom of
speech, free exercise of religion, separation of church and state,
and the principle of equality. These values were not readily
 2 Y New Introduction for the American Edition

accepted. It was only through the pervasive and growing influ-

ence of philosophers such as John Locke and Voltaire; the efforts
of political activists such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and
Mirabeau; and the acquiescence of modern rulers that these
conceptions eventually prevailed and were enshrined in written
constitutions and bills of rights at the very end of the eighteenth
century.
The elaboration of the modern concept of tolerance took place
against a backdrop of religious wars and difficult attempts to put
an end to these wars. Treaties, for example the Peace of Augs-
burg (1555), the French Edict of Nantes (1598), and the Peace of
Westphalia (1648), brought periods of truce that were rarely
definitive. Princes and their subjects were unable to conceive of
tolerance as the peaceful coexistence of religious communities
separated by strong doctrinal differences. Tolerance was a “bur-
den” that would only last until the next clash of religions. It took
only a local revolt or the intervention of some foreign power in
favor of a dissident community for the hard-won civil peace to
dissolve into open violence.
During the same period, however, a more positive concep-
tion of tolerance was gradually developed by thinkers such as
Michel de l’Hôpital and Sebastian Castellio in the sixteenth cen-
tury; John Locke and Pierre Bayle in the seventeenth century;
and Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Kant in the eighteenth century.
They all denounced the use of force to convert dissidents and
insisted that only persuasion could change a person’s faith, pro-
vided that her conversion was authentic and sincere. They also
emphasized the advantages of religious pluralism to overcome
the most dangerous religious passions. Voltaire insisted, “If there
were only one religion in England there would be danger of des-
potism, if there were two they would cut each other’s throats,
but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.”3 Other
 New Introduction for the American Edition Z 3

writers went further in linking the virtues of pluralism to direct

economic benefits. Montesquieu, for instance, observed that a
multiplicity of religions strengthened the state because the mem-
bers of tolerated religions were more likely to be hardworking
than those of the dominant religions, who would only be eager
to collect the benefits of unproductive, honorific functions.4
Kant’s moral philosophy expanded the meaning of tolerance fur-
ther in calling for the full respect of human beings as moral
persons, detached from narrowly defined religious passions.
What was needed, in an Age of Enlightenment, was “a prince . . .
who considers it his duty, in religious matters, not to prescribe
anything to his people but to allow them complete freedom.”5
Enlightened tolerance was thus conceived as an instrument of
liberation not just from religious fanaticism but from outmoded
religious dogmas and scriptural precepts. And its best safeguard
was to be found in the “freedom of the pen,” the only way to pro-
tect the rights of the people in a constitutional monarchy or a
republican commonwealth.6
Certain thinkers at the end of the eighteenth century even
believed that new republican political norms would render tol-
erance unnecessary. In a key speech before the French National
Assembly, on August 22, 1789, Mirabeau rejected the concept of
tolerance because he perceived it as exclusively dependent on the
will of a sovereign: “I do not come here to preach tolerance—
the most unlimited freedom of religion is, in my view, a right so
sacred that the word ‘tolerance’ used to express it strikes me as
itself tyrannical since the authority that tolerates can just as well
not tolerate.”7 In the same vein, George Washington, in a famous
letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island,
written on August 18, 1790, explained that Jews no longer had to
be tolerated since they possessed full “liberty of conscience and
immunities of citizenship.”8 Thomas Paine, one year later in the
 4 Y New Introduction for the American Edition

Rights of Man (1791), thought it was time to move beyond “tol-

eration,” understood as a concession granted by a prince or
priest to his subjects: “Toleration is not the opposite of Intoler-
ance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one
assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience,
and the other of granting it. The one is the Pope armed with
fire and faggot, and the other is the Pope selling or granting
indulgences.”9
Despite these critiques of the very notion of tolerance,
the concept did not disappear. Indeed, the use of the term
“tolerance”—in the positive sense—continued to grow. Critiques
of the notion of tolerance were without exception based on the
assumption that tolerance was a favor granted by an all-powerful
sovereign, and that is the particular notion of tolerance that was
rejected. Tolerance as such was not abolished; it remained a fun-
damental operating principle for a well-functioning republic (or
constitutional monarchy), open to a plurality of competing reli-
gious communities.
In the twentieth century, the concept of tolerance was gradu-
ally expanded to apply to groups that have been marginalized
on the basis of race, ethnicity, cultural identity, and gender.
Indeed, by the end of the century, debates about tolerance most
often referred to racial, ethnic, and gender issues and not to reli-
gion.10 These debates raised important political questions about
power relations, social hierarchies, and systems of domination.
For critics such as Wendy Brown, tolerance—or, more accurately,
the discourse of tolerance—is used as a smokescreen by West-
ern liberals to reinforce the oppression of ethnic minorities and
nontraditional gender groups. Borrowing loosely from Foucault,
Brown views tolerance as a form of “governmentality” designed
to affirm the superiority of Western values against less tolerant,
“primitive,” or “barbarian” societies.11 In fact, if one substitutes
 New Introduction for the American Edition Z 5

“governmentality” for “absolute Monarch,” Brown’s critique of

the notion of tolerance is very much like that of Mirabeau, Paine,
and Washington.
Admittedly, Brown is very effective in exposing the hypoc-
risy of Western political and cultural elites who attack the intol-
erance of Islam and its related cultural traditions while at the
same time attempting to regulate or even prohibit the wearing
of headscarves on the grounds that this practice reflects a lack
of choice or a submission to authoritarian religious leaders.
“Choice,” as she rightly points out, is indeed a relative concept,
and Western women who claim their superiority in being free
to dress as they wish are in fact equally constrained by social and
cultural norms but in a different way, determined by the market
forces of a consumer society.12 The problem with Brown’s analy-
sis is that—again like Mirabeau and Paine—she views tolerance
only in a negative light, as an act that, in an ideal world, would
have no reason to exist. At the same time, by limiting the scope
of her argument to the twentieth century, Brown ignores the
complex and changing modes of tolerance that evolved over time
and tends to exaggerate the Manichean dimension of a conflict
opposing a supposedly tolerant and “civilized” West to a suppos-
edly intolerant and “barbaric” non-West.13 The fact that Western
elites have used the concept of tolerance as a mask for intolerance
is no reason to throw out the concept.
Tolerance properly understood requires the open acceptance
of diverse religious communities that are not treated as “supe-
rior” or “inferior.” They all possess equal rights and benefit from
constitutional guarantees enforced by the courts and state
authorities. In such a context, members of minority or dissident
religions are respected, even though their beliefs or religious
practices may not be necessarily approved.14 For instance, I may
object to the wearing of a niqab (a full-face veil) in the public
 6 Y New Introduction for the American Edition

space because it seems to imply the subordination of women. But

should it be completely banned as it is today in France and in
Denmark? There is no easy answer, particularly if wearing a hijab
(a headscarf) or a niqab has been chosen by a free autonomous
subject for religious reasons.15 In fact, the debate about the Islamic
veil exists only because Western secular elites are reluctant to
admit that religious beliefs cannot really be separated from cul-
tural practices. The question, again, is not whether wearing the
veil expresses a religious obligation (it may not be the case) but
whether it is experienced, rightly or wrongly, as a religious obli-
gation by the faithful.16 But this does not imply that all religious
practices should be blindly accepted by state authorities. Parlia-
mentary leaders may choose to limit or ban certain religious
practices in the name of public order. But such a ban should
be carefully designed and balanced against preexisting fun-
damental rights, such as the free exercise of religion. In the end,
restrictive measures limiting the rights of a particular religious
group should only be accepted if they do not impose an exces-
sive burden on the members of the group.
The different regimes of tolerance examined in this book do
not offer a single universal model of toleration. Each regime, in
its own way, draws boundaries between the tolerable and the
intolerable, the permitted and the prohibited, the religious and
the political. Moreover, these borders fluctuate as a result of wars
and political revolutions. Public order, political survival, dynas-
tic succession, established religions, and population migration
may all impose limitations to existing regimes.17 These constraints
vary over time as attitudes and customs change. Dissident reli-
gions that were hardly tolerated in France, England, and Italy
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are today perfectly
accepted without any restrictions. However, recent religions,
such as Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and older religions
 New Introduction for the American Edition Z 7

in new settings, such as Islam and Sikhism in Europe and North

America, may cause alarm because they are poorly understood
and seem to challenge local customs and habits. This, in turn,
may facilitate the rise of intolerant, xenophobic movements
and present a difficult challenge to the advocates of modern
tolerance.
The history of tolerance, examined over a long historical
period, is a complex story of breaks and continuities, advances
and regressions.18 That history cannot be a simplistic narrative
opposing a “tolerant West” to an “intolerant non-West,” nor can
it be reduced to a linear progression from an ancient age of per-
secution to a modern age of tolerance and peaceful accommoda-
tion.19 Indeed, the “tolerant” West has regularly experienced
periods of extreme intolerance and episodes of extreme brutal-
ity: the Thirty Years’ War, the St. Bartholomew’s Day massa-
cre, the execution of Michel Servet in Geneva, the execution of
Chevalier de La Barre for blasphemy in the France of Louis XV,
the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the persecution of
Quakers, Baptists, and “witches” in North America. In fact, the
same country could be tolerant, then intolerant, in a recurring
cycle. Consider, for example, the curious treatment of French
Huguenots: the first Edict of Tolerance—the Edict of Nantes—
reconciled Catholics and Protestants in 1598; it was later revoked
with the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685, which was in turn super-
seded by a new Edict of Tolerance—the Edict of Versailles—in
1787. Given such recurrent cycles of tolerance and intolerance,
the fear of intolerance, real or imagined, is always with us, and
it is reinforced by a new postrevolutionary cycle of tolerance and
intolerance opposing, both in France and the United States,
secular forces to committed believers.
At the same time, there are numerous examples of tolerant
regimes in non-Western societies, in Indonesia, for instance,
 8 Y New Introduction for the American Edition

with the coexistence of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam; in the

Indian subcontinent, both before and after the intrusion of
Islamic conquerors; and in Turkey, after the conquest of Con-
stantinople.20 To illustrate this phenomenon and challenge, in
my own way, the much abused notion of a “clash of civilizations,”
I will examine the rise of a unique form of Islamic tolerance, bet-
ter defined as “bureaucratic and imperial,” which emerged in
the Ottoman Empire and survived for nearly four hundred years
at a time when Europe was experiencing violent and devastat-
ing religious wars.21
The concept of religious tolerance, if it is of any use today,
makes sense only if it denotes a right that exists independently
of any political or religious authority—a right that does not derive
from the arbitrary will of a political ruler, a principle as funda-
mental as the “Universal Right of Conscience” defended by
Thomas Paine. But this right is workable only if people (and their
rulers) can detach themselves from their own religious (or secu-
lar) conceptions of the good and agree to cooperate in the public
sphere. In this context, the concept of tolerance, as applied to
religion, can be conceived of as a consensual system of harmoni-
ous coexistence between a multiplicity of comprehensive reli-
gious doctrines and a secular political order. The difficulty, of
course, is to find a proper balance between the uniformity of the
rule of law and a variety of religious beliefs and nonbeliefs.22
Why write a book about religious tolerance? By the 1980s, reli-
gion no longer was a fashionable topic. And why should it be?
The globalization of the world and the rising secularism of
modern societies seemed to suggest that religious tolerance had
finally become a universal norm accepted by all without much
resistance. The antidiscrimination policies implemented in the
United States, France, Canada, and Great Britain paved the way
 New Introduction for the American Edition Z 9

for a new form of “multicultural tolerance” that emphasized

diversity rather than religion.23
The religious question, partially eclipsed by new and vigor-
ous debates on gay marriage, gender, and ethno-racial diversity,
regained the center stage when extreme forms of intolerance
challenged the very notion of free speech— one of the major
achievements of the Enlightenment. A new spiritual despotism
reintroduced the long-forgotten notion of “blasphemy.” Ayatol-
lah Khomeini’s unexpected and brutal fatwa calling for the death
of Salman Rushdie, the author of a controversial novel—The
Satanic Verses—reactivated the old debate on the limits of toler-
ance.24 A new form of religious fanaticism, fueled by Islamist
passions, led to outbreaks of violence that reached a climax with
the denunciations of cartoons mocking revered scriptures and
religious figures such as Muhammad. Terrorist attacks targeting
writers, journalists, and cartoonists in Denmark, France, Paki-
stan, and other countries raised new, difficult questions. Should
we tolerate the intolerant? Should we appease the fanatics in for-
bidding certain forms of artistic expressions perceived as offen-
sive by true believers? Is censorship or self-censorship a valid
strategy to calm the anger of the faithful? Is the risk of a “clear
and present danger” the ultimate limit to tolerance? I attempt to
address these fundamental questions in the last two chapters of
the book and in the epilogue to the American edition.
 1
TOLERANCE ACCORDING TO
JOHN LOCKE

J
ohn Locke is probably the most systematic—if not the
first—thinker of modern tolerance and for that reason
deserves a special place in this book. Locke was fully aware
of the many theological, philosophical, and political debates on
tolerance that proliferated in the second half of the sixteenth cen-
tury in the Dutch Republic, Switzerland, France, the German
states, and England. His most notable precursors strongly
believed that tolerance was integral to the pacification of societ-
ies torn apart by the wars of religion. For these thinkers, toler-
ance was inseparable from a larger set of principles and practices
that the sovereign was encouraged to embrace, including civil
peace, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the sep-
aration of spiritual and temporal powers.

THE PRECURSORS

Pierre Du Chastel (1504–1552), the leading chaplain and coun-

selor to King Francis I, denounced the execution of the “here-
tic” Étienne Dolet while extolling a certain measured skepticism
that prefigured the right to freedom of thought. He argued that
 12 Y Tolerance According to John Locke

no mortal should be condemned for heresy, since God alone can

know the absolute truth.1 A few years later, Michel de L’Hospital
(1507–1573), the chancellor and counselor to Queen Catherine de
Medici, used a medical metaphor to illustrate the progress of tol-
erance and the need to respect the freedom of thought of the
king’s subjects. Since the violent remedies of “fire and iron” had
not stopped the advance of Protestantism, a different medicine
should be tried, one using “softer remedies” that would replace
force with persuasion. The proposed solution was “pure politics”;
in other words, it did not involve the religious beliefs of the sov-
ereign.2 In a famous speech, Michel de L’Hospital insisted on
the necessity of bringing the two sides together in the interest
of peace. “Let us abolish those devilish words: partisan, faction,
sedition, Lutheran, Huguenot, Papist. Let us not change the
name of Christian.” 3 This conception of tolerance favored the
political over the religious. It advocated the “disestablishment
of the church” and the abandonment of the old absolutist prin-
ciple of “one faith, one law, one king.” 4
Étienne Pasquier (1529–1615), a famous jurist and historian of
the French monarchy, echoed these principles in his “Exhorta-
tion to Princes” and insisted on the importance of encouraging
and protecting freedom of conscience. In an unsigned text that
circulated widely in Europe, he harangued his readership in
strong terms: “For God’s sake, Sirs, do not force our thoughts at
sword point. We are all (both Romans and Protestants) Chris-
tians, united as one by the holy sacrament of baptism. We wor-
ship and revere the same God, if not in the same way at least
with the same zealous devotion. . . . Let us voluntarily obey all
the human edicts of our prince.”5 Respect for the conscience of
individuals and freedom of religion contribute to the national
interest and the peace of the kingdom. The only limit to the form
of civil tolerance advocated by Pasquier was the politicization of
 Tolerance According to John Locke Z 13

religion by ministers or overzealous preachers, who might trou-

ble the public order if their sermons veered into calls for sedi-
tion. Such excesses deserved to be severely punished.6
Among the Protestants, one finds the best defense of modern
tolerance in the works of the humanist teacher and theologian
Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563). Residing in Basel after a short stay
in Geneva, Castellio provoked an uproar by denouncing Calvin’s
intolerance in his Traité des hérétiques (1554). He held Calvin
responsible for the trial and execution for heresy and blasphemy
of the Spanish physician and theologian Michel Servet, who
was burned alive at the stake before the gates of Geneva on
October 27, 1553. In particular, Castellio accused Calvin of act-
ing cruelly, in a manner consistent with the Old Testament but
contrary to the teachings of the Gospels, and of confusing the
temporal and the spiritual. The prince or magistrate had a duty
to punish proven crimes such as theft, murder, or adultery. But
he should never place himself in the position of God by order-
ing the execution of those whose religious opinions he consid-
ered erroneous. “Killing a man is not defending a doctrine, it is
killing a man.” And what is a doctrine? It is a dogma upheld by
the doctors of the church, who have every right to punish non-
conformist thinkers by excommunicating them or condemning
them to exile. The use of the sword, however, should be reserved
for civil authorities to punish common-law crimes committed
against citizens: “If Servet had wanted to kill Calvin, the mag-
istrate would have been right to defend Calvin [by executing Ser-
vet]. But since Servet fought with his writings and reasons, it
was with reasons and writings that he should have been refuted.” 7
By systematically deconstructing the notion of heresy, Cas-
tellio highlighted the absurdity of persecuting men over dog-
matic subtleties whose meaning varies from one denomination
to another, from city to city, and from country to country. The
 14 Y Tolerance According to John Locke

only important thing was to live a Christian life and ignore

useless controversies arising from the “enigmas and obscure
questions” that come up so often in Holy Scripture. The truth,
Castellio concluded, is a matter of individual conscience and sin-
cerity. It consists in affirming “what one believes, even when one
may be mistaken.”8 With these declarations, Castellio laid out
the promise of a future utopia: a pluralist society, tolerant, open
to all religious faiths, where all men would live “amicably, with-
out any debates or strife, in loving harmony with one another.”9
These authors and many others were all known to John Locke,
who had amassed an impressive collection of works devoted to
the major religious controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.10 An extended stay in France (1675–1679) had also
exposed him directly to the effects of the Edict of Nantes and
to the multiple challenges it faced during the reign of Louis XIV.
Another stay, in the Republic of the United Netherlands (1683–
1688), allowed Locke to become familiar with the important
theological debates that divided the country’s Protestants and to
observe that religious controversies were not incompatible with
civil peace and the prosperity of a tolerant population.11 It was
in Holland, at the end of 1685 or the beginning of 1686, that
Locke wrote, in Latin, his famous Letter Concerning Toleration,
during a time of troubles and uncertainty.
In France, Louis XIV had just signed the Edict of Fontaine-
bleau (October 18, 1685), which revoked the Edict of Nantes and
accelerated the persecution of Huguenots, who were forced to
flee into exile or convert. The same year, in England, a Catholic,
the Duke of York, became King James II at the very moment
when thousands of Huguenots were going into exile in Germany,
England, and the Dutch Republic. In the years before this, Prot-
estant elites and the Anglican leadership had tried to block the
Duke of York’s possible accession to the throne. Their failure
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 V
Vacation in Reno.
R570311.
Validity checking controls.
MP25236.
Valley of the shadow.
LP43247.
Valve spacing and pressuring.
MU8999.
Vanguard Films, Inc.
R578232.
Vaudeville revue.
R573504.
V belts.
MP24919.
VD attack plan.
MP25037.
V. D. story.
LP43290.
Vega Kammback versus competition.
MU8946.
Vega versus competition.
MU8944.
Velvet prison.
LP43116.
Vendetta.
LP43443.
Venezuela.
MP24869.
Very merry cricket.
LP42986.
Very strange triangle.
LP43111.
Viacom International, Inc.
R567076 - R567077.
R570608 - R570610.
R572099 - R572115.
R579967 - R579975.
Vice versa.
LF145.
Vic Film (Productions) Ltd.
LP42961.
Victim.
LP43295.
Videgraphe Corporation.
MP25062.
Vigilante.
R578903 - R578904.
Vigilante rides again.
R578903.
Virtual storage concepts.
MP25132.
MP25133.
MP25163.
Virus.
LP43162.
Vise.
LP43239.
Vision of doom.
LP43480.
Vitaphone Corporation.
R567280 - R567288.
 R567290.
R569647 - R569649.
R571693 - R571696.
R573499 - R573504.
R576593.
R576596.
R576597.
R578349.
R578350.
R578351.
Vnuk, Wallace J.
MP25069 - MP25075.
Voices from the Russian underground.
MP25096.
Volcanic landscapes.
MP24911.
Volcanoes: exploring the restless earth.
MP24838.
Vortex.
LP43479.
Voter decides.
MP25137.
VSAM concepts and access method services usage.
MP25018.
VSAM concepts and facilities.
MP25432.
VS / DOS.
MP25162.
 W
Wacky Quacky.
R577570.
Wacky West on Wednesday.
MP25441.
Wake up and dream.
R568011.
Walfran Research and Educational Fund.
MP25069 - MP25075.
Walkaway.
MP24907.
Walking with the Master.
MP24846.
Walk south.
LP43408.
Wallis (Hal) Productions, Inc.
R578391.
Wall of silence.
LP43484.
Walls of night.
LP43028.
Wanted for murder.
R571260.
Wanted, more homes.
MP25403.
Ware, Harlan.
LP43200.
Warner Brothers, Inc.
LP42954 - LP42957.
 LP42969.
LP43118 - LP43119.
LP43626.
Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc.
R567279.
R567289.
R571689 - R571692.
R573498.
R576592.
R576595.
R578352.
Warner Brothers Productions, Ltd.
LP42953.
Warning to wantons.
LF147.
Warty the toad.
MP25394.
Washington. State Superintendent of Public Instruction. SEE
Brouillet, Frank R.
Wastepaper world.
LP43231.
Watchers.
LP43246.
Water is wide.
LP43373.
Weaker sex.
LF155.
We are curious, Scandinavia, 1973.
MU8974.
Weather: high and low pressure.
MP24784.
Weather — storm endangers forest animals.
MP24781.
Weather: superstition and facts.
MP24780.
Web of darkness.
LP43579.
Wednesday game.
LP43461.
We don’t want to lose you.
MP25339.
Weekend murders.
LP43099.
We have an addict in the house.
LP43574.
Weinkauf, David S.
MP25444.
Weird Wednesday.
LP43184.
Welcome home, Johnny Bristol.
LP43370.
Welcome stranger.
R578383.
Well — flowing, dead and unloading.
MU9002.
Well model and lift.
MU9003.
Wells, H. G.
LF130.
We’ll walk out of here together.
LP43457.
Welt, Louis A.
MU9010.
Wendland, John P.
MP25485.
Wenzonsky (Pio) Productions.
LP43122.
Werrenrath, Elizabeth I.
MP25269.
MP25270.
Wessex Film Productions.
LP141.
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
MP25460.
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. Division of Instructional
Communications. Motion Picture Services.
MP25460.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
MU8988.
West of Dodge City.
R577566.
Weston Woods. SEE Weston Woods Studios, Inc.
Weston Woods Studios, Inc.
LP42979 - LP42980.
LP42984.
LP43121.
Wet chemical methods.
MP25303.
We’ve come of age.
MP24830.
What about McBride.
MP25466.
What do you do while you wait.
MP24839.
What do you want me to say.
MP25470.
What happens when you go to the hospital.
 MP25331.
What’s new in gonorrhea.
MP24796.
What’s your I. Q.
R567067.
R570213.
Wheel.
LP43534.
When the bough breaks.
LF149.
When the wind blows.
LP43015.
Where is my wandering mother tonight.
LP43509.
Where’s my little lame stray.
LP43315.
Where’s Tommy.
MP24905.
Where the lilies bloom.
LP43371.
Where the wild things are.
LP42984.
Where today’s cats came from.
MP25178.
Where we stand in Cambodia.
MP25090.
White, Carol Elizabeth Brand Gwynn.
MU8991.
Whitefield.
MP25065.
White House family in the United States of America.
MU8991.
White knight.
LP43043.
Whittemore, L. H.
LP43267.
Who are you, Arthur Kolinski.
LP43374.
Who’ll cry for my baby.
LP43439.
Who saw him die.
LP43156.
Who says I can’t ride a rainbow.
LP43350.
Who stole the quiet day.
MP25422.
Why is a crooked letter.
LP43141.
Wicked wolf.
R570609.
Wide open spaces.
R577488.
Wife killer.
LP42995.
Wife wanted.
R577411.
Wilderness: a way of life.
MU8937.
Wild heritage.
MU8950.
Wild kingdom.
MP24855 - MP24859.
MP25437 - MP25440.
Wild West.
 R569745.
Wild West chimp.
R572018.
Willard, Emmet E.
MP25273.
William: from Georgia to Harlem.
LP43093.
Williams, Bruce Bayne.
MU9005.
Willie Dynamite.
LP43623.
Wilson, Daniel.
MP24733.
Windjam.
MP24989.
Wind raiders of the Sahara.
MP24831.
Wine is a traitor.
LP43020.
Winger Enterprises, Inc.
LP43267.
Wings of an angel.
LP43003.
Winkler, Irwin.
LP43134.
Winn, William M.
MU8903.
Winning the West.
R572106.
Winter fun.
LP43535.
Winter holiday.
 R568019.
Winter Kill.
LP43320.
Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center.
MP24800.
Witches of Salem: the horror and the hope.
LP43089.
Witch hunt.
LP43595.
With a shout, not a whimper.
LP43464.
Withers, Brian Gary.
LU3664.
Without reservations.
R570310.
With strings attached.
LP43042.
Wizan, Joe.
LP43209.
Wolf, Sidney.
MP25425.
Wolf adaptations for defense.
MP24763.
Wolf and the badger.
MP24764.
Wolfe, Tom.
LP43209.
Wolf hunting pronghorn antelope.
MP24791.
Wolper, David L.
MP25445.
Wolper Productions.
 MP24831.
MP25445.
Wolper Productions, Inc.
MP25482.
Woman alive.
MP25413.
Women.
LP43167.
Women, women, women.
MU9011.
Wonderful world of Disney, 1972 - 73.
LP43191 - LP43199.
LP43612.
MP25387.
Wonrac Productions.
LP42983.
Wood (Francis Carter) Inc.
MP24860.
Words of summer.
LP43157.
Wordworks.
MP25058 - MP25061.
Workers depend on each other.
MP25017.
Working heart.
LP43422.
Working set and locality.
MP25163.
World Book Encyclopedia.
LP43189.
World Film Services, Ltd.
LP42962.
World food problem.
MP25409.
World of Charlie Company.
MP25095.
World of concern.
MP24917.
World of darkness.
MP25214.
World of sports.
R567593.
R570079.
R572343.
R577572.
R578420.
World of the black maned lion.
MP25437.
World of work.
MP24832.
MP24833.
World premiere.
LP43101.
Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena.
MP25285 - MP25289.
MP25497 - MP25500.
Woroner Films, Inc.
MP24931.
MP24932.
MP24933.
MP25068.
MP25419.
Writing better business letters.
MP24888.
Writing workshop — secondary.
MP25370.
 X
Xerox Corporation.
LP42942 - LP42943.
LP43312 - LP43317.
Xerox Films.
LP42942 - LP42943.
LP43312 - LP43317.
 Y
Yachting Magazine.
MP25040.
Yacht Racing Magazine.
MP25040.
Yearling.
R566404.
Year 1200.
MP25088.
Yorkin, Bud.
LP43610.
LP43611.
You and your eyes.
MP24747.
You and your food.
MP24759.
You and your sense of smell and taste.
MP24754.
You and your senses.
MP24758.
You are there.
LP43357 - LP43369.
You can’t just hope they’ll make it.
MP25338.
Young mother.
MP25417.
Young widow.
R572754.
You’re too fat.
 MP25483.
You see, I’ve had a life.
MP25418.
Youth and church need each other.
MU8970.
Yugoslavian coastline.
MP25473.
 Z
Zaiontz, Michael G.
MP24976.
Zanuck, Richard D.
LP43102.
Zanuck / Brown.
LP43623.
Zardoz.
LP43258.
Ziff Davis Publishing Company.
MP25463 - MP25470.
Ziff Davis Publishing Company, CRM Productions.
MP25358.
Zlateh the goat.
LP43121.
Zoos of Geographic Society.
MP24741.
Zoos of the world.
MP24741.
Zweig, Stefan.
LF127.
Zwer, Joachim D.
MU8903.
 MOTION PICTURES
CURRENT REGISTRATIONS

A list of domestic and foreign motion pictures registered during

the period covered by this issue, arranged by registration number.
 LF
REGISTRATIONS

LF124.
Bedelia. England. 90 min., sd., b&w, 35 mm. Based on the book by
Vera Caspary. Appl. au.; Isadore Goldsmith. © John Corfield
Productions, Ltd.; 24May46; LF124.

LF125.
Don’t look now. An Anglo-Italian coproduction by Casey
Productions, Ltd. & Eldorado Films, S. R. L. England. 110 min., sd.,
color, 35 mm. From a story by Daphne DuMaurier. © D. L. N.
Ventures Partnership; 12Oct73; LF125.

LF126.
Men of two worlds. John Sutro. England. 107 min., sd., b&w, 16
mm. © Two Cities Films, Ltd.; 9Sep46; LF126.

LF127.
Beware of pity. A Pentagon production. England. 103 min., sd.,
b&w, 16 mm. From the novel by Stefan Zweig. © Two Cities Films,
Ltd.; 22Jul46; LF127.

LF128.
Theirs is the glory. England. 82 min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. ©
Gaumont British Distributors, Ltd. & General Film Distributors,
Ltd.; 14Oct46; LF128.
LF129.
Carnival. A Two Cities film. England. 93 min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. ©
Two Cities Films, Ltd.; 2Dec46; LF129.

LF130.
The History of Mister Polly. England. 96 min., sd., b&w, 35 mm.
The History of Mister Polly, by H. G. Wells. © Two Cities Films, Ltd.;
28Mar49 (in notice: 1948); LF130.

LF131.
The Reluctant widow. A Two Cities film. England. 86 min., sd.,
b&w, 16 mm. From the novel by Georgette Heyer. © Two Cities
Films, Ltd.; 1May50; LF131.

LF132.
Flood tide. A Pentagon production. England. 90 min., sd., b&w, 16
mm. © Aquila Film Productions, Ltd.; 2May49; LF132.

LF133.
Golden Salamander. A Ronald Neame production. England. 97
min., sd., b&w, 16 mm. © Pinewood Films, Ltd.; 3Feb50 (in notice:
1949); LF133.

LF134.
Fools rush in. A Pinewood Films production. England. 82 min.,
sd., b&w, 16 mm. From the play by Kenneth Horne. © Pinewood
Films, Ltd.; 23May49; LF134.

LF135.
Dear Mister Prohack. A Pentagon production. England. 89 min.,
sd., b&w, 35 mm. Adapted from the novel, Mister Prohack, by Arnold