First. My original comment rejecting Newbigin’s talk of a tolerant Christian state only gave half of my reason: that the state might withdraw its tolerance. The other half of my reason is that we have something much better than tolerance: an irrevocable right to religious freedom covering belief, expression, and exercise. The existence of that right denies the government the option of religious intolerance so its promise would be welcome but not very impressive.

We should never trade that right for a promise of tolerance from any kind of government. Such promises came with the established churches of England and the colonies. They were broken.

Madison and Jefferson first replaced toleration with a right in the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Madison cut “all men shou’d enjoy the fullest Toleration…” and pasted “all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise…” Governmental religious tolerance has been outmoded ever since.

Hasson details the history of tolerance. He also works out the source of the right (conscience), describes its history, and suggests a future. (I’m recommending the book.)

Second. As you point out, Newbigin writes from a British perspective and they have an established church plus blasphemy and blasphemous libel laws protecting (only) that church. To me, it seems that the state of England already ‘acknowledges the Christian faith as true’ but apparently Newbigin doesn’t think so. I wonder what ‘acknowledgement’ would satisfy him.

Third. Agreed, tolerance is for people, not for beliefs, arguments, or ideas, and not for actions.

I appreciate this post very much.