Religious Tolerance in Montesquieu's "Persian Letters"

Religious Tolerance in Montesquieu's Persian Letters

In Montesquieu's Persian Letters, the logic and reason of the Enlightenment become tools for examining the various extremes present in all walks of life thus demonstrating the need for balance and toleration. In his depiction of religion, Montesquieu probes the inconsistencies defying reason found in religious belief, practice, and leadership. He also presents the concept of cultural relativism wherein belief is subject to one's culture. Combining cultural relativism with religion's failure to meet the Enlightenment's tests of logic and reason, tolerance becomes the only reasonable response to religious differences (and inconsistencies).

Rica equates the concept of the trinity, the three-in-one nature of God, with magic and superstition (Letter 24). One of the goals of the Enlightenment was the elimination or, minimally, tolerance of superstitions or other beliefs that could not be proven with reason. The doctrine of the trinity is one of many Christian beliefs that, because it is based on an internal faith response, cannot be justified by reasoning. Montesquieu continues to examine the lack of logic in religious belief by questioning how an omniscient God can fit with the doctrine of free will (Letter 69). He argues that, if God is all-knowing, there can be no choice since the outcome is already decided and known. Conversely, if man has freedom of choice, then God cannot be omniscient since the outcome has yet to be decided. Simple reasoning exposes such theological discrepancies.

In addition to what are for the enlightened mind illogical beliefs, Montesquieu questions the codification of religious belief wherein the bishops "compose articles of belief" as they go (Letter 29), but turn around and declare the authors of new propositions to be heretics. The chaotic conditions of Christian belief are summarized best by Usbek when he remarks that "what is true at one time is false at another" (Letter 75). Monesquieu verbalizes the situation concisely in stating, "We cause social disturbances and make ourselves suffer in order to spread religious beliefs which are not fundamental" (Letter 61).

In religious practice Montesquieu also finds many discrepancies. Letter 46 addresses the confusion over the proper language for worshipping God as well as the proper position for engaging in prayer. Different religions had varying standards with regard to the language for worship ranging from Latin, which was not understood by most followers or leaders, to the vernacular of common everyday speech. Some groups advocated praying while erect, some while kneeling, while others called for a prostrate supplicant. The question as to which approach is correct is raised, but no answer can be found in reason so no basis can be established for accepting one religion's approach as superior to that of another.

A discrepancy between talk and action is found in the granting of dispensations for those who choose not to fulfill the religious practices expected of them. This is explained as a matter of "public utility" due to the fact that "this religion is burdened with an infinity of very difficult observances" (Letter 29). The granting of dispensations in the form of indulgences played a major role in triggering the Reformation, because it contradicted the very purpose of the religious practice along with its moral and legal guidelines. In this way the practice of one discrepancy led to the divergent religions that plagued Europe with their conflicting doctrines and religious forms.

Another area where Montesquieu attacks religious practice for contradicting at least part of reason's outlook is the Inquisition. He notes that guilt is always assumed while the testimony of individuals of questionable character is readily believed. He observes that if there is any doubt concerning the accused it results in more severe treatment. The end result of these "trials" is particularly attacked where the judges speak of leniency and hatred of bloodshed while condemning the accused to death. However, Montesquieu observes that "to console themselves they confiscate for their own benefit everything that the poor wretches possess" (Letter 29). This is countered with the comment that "we should guard against zealotry" (Letter 61).

In attacking the discrepancies to be found in church leaders, Montesquieu points to the Pope as "an ancient idol, worshipped now from habit" (Letter 29). Not only does this defy reason, it also contradicts the biblical command found in Exodus 20:3-4 against idols or worshipping anyone or anything other than the Lord God. In the same letter, the bishops are described as "men of the Law" who turn around and "dispense people from obedience to the Christian law." Montesquieu then says of religious leaders that they work diligently to maintain a state of neutrality -- to sin and worldliness (Letter 61).

The concept of cultural relativism traces back to the Greek historian Herodotus who, in chronicling events of the pst, demonstrated that the "belief that right' and wrong' were little more than names for social conventions" (Rachels 4). One of the purest examples of interpretation based on culture is found in the story of the Troglodytes in Letters 10-14 where incest is considered not only acceptable, but desirable by their specific society. Focusing this concept onto religion, Montesquieu concludes through Usbek that

all religions are worthy of respect, and their ministers also, for "God has chosen for Himself, in every corner of the earth, souls purer than the rest, whom He has separated from the impious world that their mortification and their fervent prayers may suspend His wrath." (Davidson 9)

In Letter 46, Usbek concludes that living as a good citizen in the society where God placed him is the only true form for worshipping God (Healy xix). Throughout Persian Letters, Montesquieu points to the similarities between differing religions and the differences in similar ones. He frequently refers to all religious leaders by a common name ("dervishes") regardless of the particular religion being discussed. All of these tie together because, if customs vary from place to place, then most of what society has, even in the form of its religious beliefs, is a social convention created by society with no basis in reason (Koeller). As different people have different ways of worshipping their interpretation of the Divine, these beliefs grow out of their societal existence and each within its own setting must be acknowledged as correct. Therefore, Montesquieu establishes the need for tolerance since reason can not determine a final correct form of belief nor a means for ruling one society's method right and another's wrong. Montesquieu many times acknowledges the problems borne out by the various discrepancies and differing approaches to religion in the form of Christian civil war brought about by intolerance (Letter 85). The Wars of Religion had devastated Europe and the continued intolerance threatened ultimate destruction of all involved. As Locke had done, Montesquieu argues for toleration based on enlightened ideas. Montesquieu uses logic to portray God. "If there is a God . . . he must necessarily be just; for if he were not, he would be the worst and most imperfect being of all" (Letter 83). In Letter 85 he concludes that if one reasons without prejudice, the existence of several religions in a state would be found to be desirable. Usbek leaves no doubt to the need of Europeans with regard to religion when in response to the attitude of religious leaders that they are infallible judges he responds that they "are in great need of being enlightened" (Letter 101).

After exploring many religious differences and discrepancies, none of which can be settled logically, Montesquieu equates reason with tolerance. He addresses religious belief, practice, and leadership from an enlightened point of view that ultimately continues with cultural relativism to recommend acceptance and tolerance as the only logical approach in dealing with subjective personal faith and religious choices.

Works Cited
Davidson, John, Trans. And Intro. Persian and Chinese Letters: Begin the Lettres Persanes. By Charles Louis, Baron de Montesquieu. Washington: M. Walter Dunne, Publisher, 1901.

Healy, George R., Trans. And Intro. The Persian Letters. Montesquieu. NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1964.

Koeller, David, Ph.D. Lectures in Western Civilization from 1500. Enid, OK: Phillips University, Spring 1993.

Montesquieu, Persian Letters. Trans. And Intro. C. J. Betts. London: Penguin Books, 1973.

Rachels, James, Ed. The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. NY: Random House, 1989.