The originator of religious freedom, Locke, believes that religious freedom is premised and no absolute religious freedom.

Because of the exemplary role of non-establishment of the United States Constitution and the rational charm of Locke on religious tolerance, all the political textbooks defined religious freedom as one of the basic human rights, including “the declaration of human rights,” which was born in the French Revolution shortly after the American Revolution, and “the Universal Declaration of human rights”. However, they all ignored the actual environment of the United States’ constitution and the original meaning of Locke’s on religious tolerance.

When the United States became independent, the North American colonies were Christian, with almost 100 % of the population being Christians and only of different denominations. Still, they all believed in the same Bible. Occasionally, some were not Christians but naturalists who believed in God even if they did not believe in the miracles of the Bible. At this time, Christianity and Islam were fighting in Poland, a war of life and death related to faith. There was no Islamist in the colonies at all. No matter how great these founding fathers were, it was impossible to put the deadly enemy Islam into the list of religious tolerance.

Moreover, the constitution of the United States uses the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “. This is obviously aimed at the Anglican church as the British state religion enjoyed national resources and clearly stated that the constitution was about the various sects within Christianity. Because there is no state religion concept in the Islamic world, they are political and religious unity. The state is the church; the church is the state. All other sects, like paganism, are enemies that must be eliminated. There is no concept of state religion and no state religion in the Islamic world. Therefore, using the word ” state religion ” proved that the founding fathers excluded Islam in the First Amendment. If Islam is taken into account religious tolerance, the words such as “state religion” would be given up. It was hard to believe the founding fathers used the word “state religion” to a religion that does not have the concept, stipulating that “you cannot become our “state religion””. Of course, the purpose of this discussion does not to argue that Islam cannot exist or preach freely in the United States. It only wants to say that the fundamental of the first amendment and the constitution should not be forgotten; it is set up for different Christian sects. It also can not be forgotten that all Christian sects recognize brotherly love as a Christian fundament. The love of brothers is fundamental to the first amendment and the constitution. Religious freedom cannot violate the foundation of brotherly love, nor trample on the love of brothers in the name of religious freedom, and hurt the real love under God. Whether it is the first amendment or Christianity, brotherhood is the first fundamental. Therefore, any religion that puts brotherly love first should be within the scope of the first amendment.

Similarly, the first amendment does not protect the religion that hurts the love of brothers. Therefore, it can conclude that the first amendment doesn’t protect any religion, and the first amendment cannot defend cults and religions without brotherhood. Saying so much, I would like to say that the first amendment does not protect religion without brotherhood love, which is the foundation of the first amendment and the constitution because this is the base of history.

At the same time, Locke’s ” A Letter Concerning Tolerance “, which has affected many of the United States’ founding fathers, was originally written for the disputes between different Christian sects, not for the tolerance of all religions, and the argument is also obvious.

First, the book’s first sentence is, “.Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.” ①

Secondly, in the following discussion, Locke immediately mentioned that the main reason for religious tolerance is that as a Christian, the most basic condition is to have a heart of brotherly love. (Locke also uses brotherly love here for the same reason that I often use brotherly love, and I don’t want fraternity), he said, ” Let Anyone never have so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.” Starting from the love of brothers, he thought those who used swords and torments to abuse, torture and destroy their religious friends to death, whether they had a little brotherly love in their hearts and whether they were still Christians. Locke even came to the conclusion that these people were Antichrist, and they disguised their true intention of anti-Christian cruelty and persecution of others in the name of Christ. ②

Thirdly, Locke clearly explained the situation that religious tolerance was not applicable. He wrote, ” Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do there by ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists,either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a “Toleration” — John Locke 42Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate inthe state” Locke clearly pointed out in this paragraph that the religion of the integration of politics and religion is not in the list of tolerance, because these believers cannot be loyal to this country, but only to their own religious masters. Locke’s thoughts hundreds of years ago can be streets ahead of these leftist politicians. He had clearly discerned that the religion of politics and religious unity might cause harm to the country and the religious freedom of other religions. He proposed that the religion of integrating politics and religion can’t be included in religious tolerance.

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have nohold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which theyare taught, there can be no reason why they should notbe tolerated.” ③

From the above three points, we can see that Locke is very sober and sharp. He is worthy of being a great thinker who has influenced the world for hundreds of years. I wonder if those who believe that the first amendment “does not establish a state religion, and do not hinder religious freedom” aim at all religions. Have you seen Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Tolerance”? ④

From these arguments, we can see, according to Locke’s theory, it is not that non-Christians cannot preach in the United States, but the Theocracy cannot spread in the United States. Because it may cause great harm to other religions and the country, the Theocracy should not be protected by the constitution’s first amendment. And here, Locke also clearly points out that Islam is a Theocracy and can not be put in the scope of religious tolerance because they ask the believers to obey the church, not the chief executive. We have also discussed in the previous chapters that Islam has no concept of religious freedom. Their doctrine is the unity of the state and the church. The state is the church; the church is the state; no other religions are allowed to exist at all. Therefore, Islam is not among Locke’s religious tolerance, so there has never been universal religious freedom in human history.