Religious Toleration vs Religious Freedom: Understanding the Distinction

The concepts of religious toleration and religious freedom are often used interchangeably, but they are not identical. Religious toleration is the principle that the state should permit the existence of religious beliefs and practices that it considers to be mistaken or even harmful. Religious freedom is the principle that individuals have a right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, and that this right should be protected by the state against interference, whether by other individuals or by the state itself. This article examines the distinction between the two concepts, their historical development, and their contemporary significance.

The Concept of Toleration

The concept of toleration has a long history. In the early modern period, toleration was typically understood as a grant of permission by the state. The state would permit the existence of religious groups that it did not officially approve, and it would allow these groups to worship in their own way. The toleration was a concession, not a right, and it could be revoked at the will of the sovereign.

The classical case of toleration in this sense is the English Act of Toleration of 1689. The Act granted Protestant Dissenters the right to worship in their own way, but it did not grant them the right to participate fully in the political life of the nation. The Act also excluded Catholics and Unitarians from its protections. The toleration was a concession, not a right, and it reflected the political calculations of the moment rather than a principled commitment to religious freedom.

The Enlightenment defense of toleration, developed by John Locke, Voltaire, and the other defenders of the new philosophy, was an important step in the development of the modern concept of religious freedom. But the Enlightenment defense of toleration was still, in many respects, a defense of the state’s permission to allow religious diversity, not a defense of the individual’s right to the free exercise of religion.

The Concept of Religious Freedom

The concept of religious freedom is more demanding than the concept of toleration. Religious freedom is the principle that individuals have a right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, and that this right should be protected by the state against interference. The right of religious freedom is not a concession that can be revoked at the will of the sovereign; it is a fundamental right that the state is bound to respect.

The transition from the concept of toleration to the concept of religious freedom was an important development in the history of modern political thought. The transition can be traced to a number of sources:

The American Revolution produced the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Amendment is not merely a grant of toleration; it is a recognition of the right of religious freedom.

The French Revolution produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which proclaimed the freedom of religion as one of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. The Declaration is, in principle, a recognition of the right of religious freedom, not merely a grant of toleration.

The contemporary international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the various international covenants, recognize the right of religious freedom as a fundamental human right. The right is not merely a grant of toleration; it is a right that the state is bound to respect.

The Key Differences

The two concepts differ in several important respects.

The first difference concerns the basis of the principle. Toleration is a concession; religious freedom is a right. The state that tolerates a religious group is making a decision to allow the group to exist; the state that respects religious freedom is recognizing a right that belongs to the individuals of the group.

The second difference concerns the proper response to violations. The state that has granted toleration can revoke the toleration; the state that has recognized a right cannot legitimately violate the right. The proper response to a violation of religious freedom is not to revoke the permission, but to enforce the right.

The third difference concerns the proper scope. The toleration of a religious group is typically limited to the freedom of worship; the freedom of religion is typically much broader, including the freedom to manifest one’s religion in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. The contemporary principle of religious freedom includes not only the freedom of worship but also the freedom to engage in the various other activities that are part of the practice of one’s religion.

The Historical Development

The historical development of the two concepts can be traced through several stages.

The first stage was the age of religious persecution, in which the state enforced religious uniformity and persecuted religious dissenters. The wars of religion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were the most dramatic expression of this age.

The second stage was the age of religious toleration, in which the state began to permit the existence of religious groups that it did not officially approve. The English Act of Toleration of 1689, the French Edict of Toleration of 1787, and the various other toleration acts of the eighteenth century were important expressions of this stage.

The third stage was the age of religious freedom, in which the state recognized the right of individuals to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. The American First Amendment, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the various other constitutional and international instruments of the late eighteenth and twentieth centuries were important expressions of this stage.

The Contemporary Significance

The contemporary debate about the proper relationship between the two concepts is part of the broader debate about the proper foundation of religious freedom in the modern world.

The defenders of the concept of religious freedom emphasize the importance of the recognition of the right, and they argue that the contemporary state should not merely tolerate religious diversity, but should actively protect the right of individuals to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

The defenders of the concept of toleration emphasize the importance of the recognition of the limits of the state, and they argue that the proper response to religious diversity is to leave the religious groups alone, not to recognize positive rights that require state enforcement.

The proper response to the contemporary challenges of religious diversity, on most accounts, requires both the recognition of the right of religious freedom and the practice of religious toleration. The right of religious freedom provides the legal and political framework for the protection of the religious practices of individuals and groups; the practice of religious toleration provides the social and cultural framework for the peaceful coexistence of different religious communities.

Further Reading

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu), relevant entry
• Mark Goldie & Robert Wokler, eds., The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (2006)
• Terence Ball, Reappraising Political Theory (1995)