Locke's argument for religious toleration

In class we talked about the two arguments for religious toleration in Locke's work. Generally the first one is the true belief argument, saying that true belief can not be brought about by coercion. The second one is the golden rule argument or the universalization argument, saying that one principle is not acceptable unless is could be universalized. Now we mainly talked about the first one, the main point is that the argument missed the point in argument for religious toleration because the coercion used in religious expand is not to promote the salvation of soul but for some reason else even though in many cases it was carried out in the name of true religion. More generally, Locke is attacked by his dissenter that even coercion may not work directly in changing people's belief but may do indirectly, or in distance. These discussion limited the topic in whether the coercion or what kind of coercion is effective or acceptable in religion expand. I indeed agree with that Locke missed the point in this argument but my point is that even the coercion is effective in changing people's belief it will still be wrong. That is to say, the point against religious coercion is not the irrationality of coercion but the immorality of coercion. Could the magistrate or church use the force if the force is effective? I think the coercion is really effective at least indirectly and in distance but this does not prove that the coercion used to change people's belief is morally reasonable. So, the discussion is also missing the point. It is said generally the universalization argument appears in the following letters after the first one. This means a more persuasive argument is coming later than the first letter, however, I want to emphasize that a persuasive argument based on another point is already there in the first letter.

Here I will briefly sketch out the main project of his first letter in term of the another argument and also point out that even the true belief is not the point for religious toleration but it in fact is helpful and indispensable in the project, at least in the social context Locke was living. The point of religious toleration is to oppose coercion acted by church or magistrate in religious expand. To support the stand, Locke, I think, has three basic premises. First one is his understanding of what is true belief, second is his interpretation of the nature of church, the third is his understanding about distinction between religion and civil issue, the former is concerned with church while the latter is about the duty of magistrate. However, all of these three points are based on one same core, that is , the liberty of conscience. For it, true belief is only based on one's own choosing, but can not be brought about by external coercion.For it, the nature of society is an association constituted by volunteers who aims to promote their religious belief and therefore is only concerned with the salvation of soul without referring to any civil issue. For it, the magistrate can not insert a finger in religious issue and the power of it can not be lent to church. If this is right, Locke has no need to refer to the true belief argument but I think this argument actually is used to attack a wrong common sense, that is, the coercion will bring unbelievers into true religion. So, I thing even this argument holds a long part in the letter but it is just composed for instrumental goal. The real argument behind it is the project shown above. I will consider it further and try to give a more complete interpretation.