John Locke and the Freedom of Belief

Abstract

In 1686 William Penn gave John Locke a copy of Penn's Frame of Government for Pennsylvania, a constitution he had drafted hoping to establish Pennsylvania as a Christian utopia, but which the residents of the commonwealth had rejected four years earlier, to Penn's consternation. Locke did not find much to like in it either. One intriguing proposal it contained was a provision to erect and order all schools. Although Locke was interested in education—indeed during that very year he was advising friends on how to educate their son, advice he would later publish as popular thoughts on the subject—his reaction to that proposal could not have been more negative. Public education, he wrote in his journal, is the surest check upon liberty of conscience, suppressing all displeasing opinions in the bud.1 Today this sentiment probably seems absurd to many, especially considering the educational system in the United States. Public education is an important means for acquiring skills necessary not only for participation in our society but also for practicing true freedom of belief, since such freedom is hindered by ignorance and superstition, or so it is often thought. Aside from the question of whether schools typically replace some superstitions with others, this author suggests there is reason to question the claim that the United States' form of funding education, in which so-called public schools enjoy a nearly exclusive control over funds earmarked for education, is necessary, or even the best means, to achieve the ends for which compulsory education does seem necessary. The harm principle can be invoked to justify compulsory education. It requires further argument, however, to show that the United States' system of funding education is the best and most just. In the United States, one school system serves each educational district, funded by government at various levels, which is supposed to be sufficient for everyone regardless of race, religion, or creed;