3.2.2 - Tolerance and freedom of religious expression
Tolerance protects people precisely when their convictions differ, but freedom of religious expression cannot be unlimited. Jesus' love of enemies, human dignity and conscience meet Article 9, the contrasting Eweida and Chaplin cases, and Kantian, Benthamite and virtue-based tests. The challenge is to defend Christian public witness consistently while accepting proportionate limits for safety, equality and the rights of others.
The Issue And Key Terms
This is a dialogue lesson, so the question is not simply, "What do Christians believe about tolerance?" It is: how do Christian teachings and practices interact with ethical studies when society asks what should be tolerated, what religious expression should be protected, and where limits should be drawn?
Tolerance
Tolerance is the deliberate restraint of interference with beliefs, speech or practices that one may disagree with or disapprove of. It is not the same as approval, indifference or relativism.
Freedom of religious expression
Freedom of religious expression is the freedom to manifest religion or belief publicly or privately, individually or with others, through worship, teaching, practice, observance, symbols, speech and conduct.
The distinction matters. A Christian may tolerate another religion without believing that all religions are equally true. A secular state may protect public Christian expression without endorsing Christianity. Ethical studies then asks whether such protection is justified by duty, rights, utility, virtue, conscience, social peace or respect for human dignity.
For AQA, the dialogue must hold two sides together:
| Christianity side | Ethical-studies side | Dialogue question |
|---|---|---|
| Biblical teaching, church teaching, conscience, mission, love of neighbour and human dignity | Rights, toleration, proportionality, consequences, public welfare, equality and virtue | Does Christian ethics give strong reasons to protect freedom of religious expression, including for those with whom Christians disagree? |
An accurate AO1 point identifies both the Christian response and the ethical concept. A useful AO2 move then tests whether that response is coherent, workable and persuasive when religious expression affects other people.
Tolerance is strongest as an ethical issue when it protects people whose beliefs or expressions one does not share; otherwise it is only agreement dressed up as virtue.
Christian Sources For Tolerance
Several Christian sources can support tolerance and freedom of religious expression, but they do so for different reasons.
| Source or teaching | AO1 content | Dialogue significance |
|---|---|---|
| Genesis 1:27 | Human beings are understood as made in the image of God. | This can support dignity-based arguments: people should not be coerced in matters of conscience because persons have God-given worth. |
| Matthew 5:43-48 | Jesus teaches love for enemies and prayer for persecutors. | Tolerance is not just politeness toward friends; Christian love can require non-retaliation and concern for opponents. |
| Matthew 7:12 | The Golden Rule asks people to treat others as they would wish to be treated. | This gives a reciprocal argument for religious liberty: Christians seeking freedom for themselves should consider whether similar freedom should be granted to others. |
| Romans 14:1-4 | Paul warns against quarrelling and contempt over disputable matters within the Christian community. | This supports intra-Christian tolerance, while also raising the harder question of how far tolerance extends beyond internal disagreements. |
| Acts 5:29 | The apostles claim obedience to God can take priority over human commands. | This supports freedom of religious witness and conscience, but also creates tension when expression conflicts with law or public duties. |
These sources do not all point in a simple liberal direction. Christianity also contains truth claims, missionary duties and moral boundaries. A Christian response may therefore support freedom from coercion while still maintaining that some beliefs or practices are false, harmful or spiritually mistaken. That is why "tolerance" must not be confused with "all views are equally true."
The Catholic declaration Dignitatis Humanae is useful here because it separates civil religious freedom from doctrinal relativism. It defends freedom from coercion in religious matters as grounded in human dignity, while not abandoning the claim that truth matters. Ecumenical bodies such as the World Council of Churches have also treated freedom of religion and belief as a serious concern, especially where minorities, public expression or intolerance are involved.
The AO2 pressure point is clear: if Christian ethics grounds tolerance in dignity and love, it has a strong basis for protecting others. But if a Christian community treats tolerance only as something it wants for itself, the response becomes ethically weaker because it fails the reciprocity implied by the Golden Rule.
Public Expression And Its Limits
Freedom of religious expression is more than private belief. It can include wearing religious symbols, worshipping publicly, teaching, evangelising, refusing to perform certain actions on conscience grounds, or organising community life around religious commitments.
Ethically, this creates a balance:
- If religion is part of a person's identity and conscience, forcing it entirely into private life may disrespect human dignity.
- If religious expression affects others, it may need limits where safety, public order, health, equality or the rights and freedoms of others are at stake.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives a useful public framework: freedom to hold or change belief is protected without the manifestation restrictions, while manifestation of belief can be limited where restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. The ethical idea underneath is not "religion always wins" or "religion should disappear from public life." It is a proportional judgement about competing goods.
The Eweida and Chaplin cases show why this matters without turning the lesson into law. Both involved Christian women who wanted to wear a visible cross or crucifix at work. In Eweida, the restriction was judged disproportionate because corporate image carried too much weight against a discreet act of Christian expression. In Chaplin, health and safety in a hospital setting outweighed the visible wearing of the crucifix on a chain. The ethical dialogue is about proportionality: similar Christian expression can be treated differently when the competing reason is different.
For Christian ethics, this produces a careful response. Many Christians can argue that public witness is part of discipleship and should not be excluded simply because it is religious. At the same time, Christian love of neighbour may require expression to be shaped by concern for others, especially when a practice risks harm, coercion or unjust discrimination.
The strongest Christian response is not "unlimited expression"; it is expression protected as conscience and witness, then tested by love of neighbour, justice and proportionate concern for others.
Dialogue With Ethical Theories
The AQA dialogue wording expects Christian views to be considered in relation to ethical studies. Kant, Bentham and virtue ethics should be used here as comparison points, not as a whole new lesson.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account