LOL ...
You should have kept right on quoting ... but I get that it would have exposed your agenda (religious bigotry)
Selective Bias Logical Fallacy. It's his bread and butter. Don't take that away from him. It's all he's got.
Here's what follows immediately after what you quoted above:
" ... The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed."
In this matter, history has clearly shown Sam Adams - and Locke - were wrong.
I'm not sure why he was even quoting Adam's writings on the Rights of Colonists, anyway, since it, oh, wait, never mind, I know, it's because it contains a snippet that he agrees with and helps make his point, and it's written by somebody important, so you'd better get in line, mister. So there. Context never has been his strong suit. Ignoring it, or creating a new one, that's another story.
In any event, even what he quoted is largely crap.
"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church."
I remember reading that in high school, and I laughed then. Tolerance of other religions is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Oh, that Sammy Adams, what a crack up he was.
Granted, most religions teach it and preach it, even though they don't necessarily practice it much.
I don't think Locke was entirely wrong, though. Locke's position wasn't as simple as Adams' one line in his
Natural Rights of Colonists as Men would seem to indicate. Locke was dead set against Catholics, but at the same time struggled with how to be tolerant of their religious worship and beliefs. Locke's primary goal was to "distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion." He strongly felt that government is instituted to promote external interests, like those relating to life, liberty, and the general welfare, while the church exists to promote internal interests, like salvation. The two serve separate functions, therefore they must be considered to be separate institutions, and never the twain shall meet, so to speak.
Catholic Imperialism is, by definition and in practice, in direct conflict with most any non-Catholic government, and certainly not a government of the people. Catholic Imperialism was not compatible with the established and natural right of the Colonists as Men, nor would it be compatible with the Constitution ratified in 1787. To allow Catholic Imperialism to take hold would set aside the rights of men, as "all those who enter into it do thereby
ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince." Meaning, according to Locke, that either the Catholic Church would become the government, or the government's magistrate would be forced to abide by the settling of a "foreign jurisdiction" in his own country and see its followers 'listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government and for the Church. That can be equally applied to Catholic Imperialism, and Islamic Imperialism, actually.
Locke felt strongly that a country with a single religion was not only more likely to engage in regular bouts of civil unrest, but tended to be stagnant as a nation. He felt the more religions there are, the less civil unrest would occur, but only if those religions actively taught tolerance of other religions. By and large he's been correct on that. But he felt so strongly about it that any religion that did not teach tolerance wouldn't be allowed in here, as they would be incompatible with the personal liberties of men, of the government, and of a civil society. He felt, clearly, that any religion that would be subversive to the government, and thus to society and the nation's culture and morality, should not be allowed to take hold of such power.
Locke was going through all this at a time of political and intellectual conflict, and religion and beliefs were caught in the middle in trying to break free from both. On one hand he believed that atheists shouldn't be tolerated, either, and should be forced into one religion or another (despite his conflicting arguing that the only way a Church can gain genuine converts is through persuasion and not through violence), since "Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist." But he later questions whether atheism was even an obstruction or hindrance to political obedience of a society, and later determined it was not.
So I do agree that any religion that has as its goal or as part of its doctrine that it should become itself the ruling power the governed, or if its doctrines are incompatible with the laws of the land and the culture in which it tries to establish power, then it should not be allowed to establish such a power.
That should not be construed to mean Catholics or Muslims shouldn't be allowed here. That's absurd. But if the Catholics start making noises about Imperialism, they get shut down. Muslims should not be feared, but they nevertheless should be watched closely, as some of them will want to take the more fundamentalist views of Islam and put them into practice. While most Muslims are tolerant and peace-loving, and are moderate Muslims the same way that most Christians are moderate Christians, the religion of Islam in and of itself is not a religion of peace and tolerance. It doesn't even teach tolerance except under certain circumstances and situations. There are many different levels of tolerance in Islam, almost none of which mean what most in the west think they do.
The terms "peace" and "tolerance" don't even mean the same things in Islam that they do here in the west. The Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and embraces Islam, and that's how Islam views it. In Islam, the only way to achieve true peace is through settlement, jihad, and the institution of sharia. That's a fact.
However, it's also a fact that the Old Testament is chock full of same kind of crap that most Christians don't follow, either. So don't be too quick to get your islamophobic panties in a wad.
Islam is a religion, but it's more than that. It's got a spiritual component, of course, but it's also got an inextricable political component. Meaning, the religion and the politics (and government) are one in the same. So when I say Muslims should be watched closely, I'm talking about the ones who aren't the moderates and will try and start religious creep in government. That won't happen unless the Muslim population gets large enough to demand and require it.
Islamic communities can institute sharia if they like, so long as it doesn't conflict with existing laws, and they don't expect non-Muslims to abide by it. It's not a problem. We have Hasidic Jews in New York that, in exchange for the community’s loyalty, politicians have given Brooklyn’s Hasidim wide latitude to police themselves. They have their own emergency medical personnel, police, and even a rabbinic court system, which often handles not only civil but criminal allegations. Brooklyn's Hasidic children’s learning differs greatly from what is taught in public schools, too. Boys in elementary and middle school study religious subjects from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. followed by approximately 90 minutes of English and math. At 13, when boys formally enter yeshiva, most stop receiving any English instruction. English and math and science are considered "profane" to Hasidim, so it's not surprising that many come out of school with a limited grasp of English. I think it's ironic that Hasidic Jews think math is profane, though. But that's what happens when your higher learning is focused on religion, which doesn't even ask the questions of how things work, since they already have that figured out, instead of focusing on how things actually work. Same thing happened to the more fundamentalist Muslims (and Christians). It's why the old saying, "Religion makes you stupid" is so true in many cases.
But in America, the truth is that Muslims are fairly well assimilated. A Pew Research Center report (several of them, actually) found that Muslims in the U.S. came from at least 77 countries. “Mixing breeds tolerance,” the article stated, and John Locke would nod his head in agreement. The report also noted that,“Most American Muslims think that their faith is open to multiple interpretations," and not solely to the wishes of an iron-fisted crackpot fundamentalist imam.
