Spinoza wrote that free speech and free thought is prioritary, but he also wrote that all the people is not always able to think rigthly, so that is also necessary the tolerance to religious practice for democracy. Spinoza vs. Locke is not possible spinoza+locke?
ximo brotons
-----------
Let me qualify this post by saying I've only read chp 1-6 of Theological Political Treatise so far. The other qualification is that I am trying to think about Spinoza in relation to what Leo Strauss wrote about him. This means that I am trying to focus only on some parts of Spinoza's work.
The problem that J.I. Israel was addressing (I think) is that there is a difference between religious tolerance advocated by Locke, and the larger scope of social and legal tolerance for diverse ideas. I get the impression that Spinoza was mainly interested in science and philosophy and thought that religion interfered with the pursue of both. So his main concern was to advocate for free philosophical expression. In that context, he thought that common people could not follow a philosophy of ideas. Since he wrote in Latin, he was addressing the `educated' classes. So, I agree Spinoza was not exactly a democrat in that sense.
So far in Spinoza, he rejects revelation, miracles, prophecy, prophets of course, divine law, and holy scripture. His idea of God is essentially equivalent to the `laws of nature'. This is why he can reject revelation and miracles, since these are all counter to the regular order of the world. However, just because there is order in nature that doesn't provide a reason to worship it, pray to it, or revere it. This in effect is pretty much what most modern scientists who are not outright atheist might claim as their metaphysical belief, if pressed on it.
Spinoza uses Descartes materialism as the basis of his conception of how the world works, but rejects the duality of a `mind' independent of the `body'. So I am not sure a `divine' creator fits anywhere in Spinoza's universe, which is composed of material interactions and their formative processes. I haven't read any of Spinoza work on optics---but if he follows his own philosophy of materialism, then he will have to conclude that light is made of particles. I think both Newton and Leibniz also thought light was made of particles (I am not sure about Leibniz).
The real conflict between science and religion in US history arrived with Darwin and evolution, and it is still going on. This is where the US legal system could use some old fashion Enlightenment philosophy to sort out the difference between tolerance for religious practices, and the general social and educational benefit of exposure to scientific ideas, as well as more diverse political ideas.
As far as I know, philosophy as such is not taught in US high schools anywhere.
In any event, the US rightwing fundamentalist Christians have managed to convince many people that science is a `belief system' and therefore equivalent to a religion, and therefore co-equal. So from this assumption it follows that scientific ideas and religious ideas should be taught side by side. Once the Right's claim that science is a system of belief is allowed, then they push the concept of `freedom' and `tolerance' between conflicting `doctrines' to argue for equal time as if all this were on tv.
CG