He stops the thinker, a tyrannous religion on all the others, that is without tolerance, would use the force to apply its laws and would violate the freedom rational of the individuals. He has of if concluding that the intolerncia and the breaking of the freedom constitute the fundamental one of the religious wars. For the Frenchman, with the performance of two distinct principles he only can interrupt the imposition of the religious uniformity: Religious pluralism and one to be able strong politician of impartial religiosidade that makes possible the pacific convivncia of all. Chevron may not feel the same. When if it has a balance religious politician and, then the civil tolerance is had. In accordance with Saints (2004, P.
45), referenciando it Bayle the tolerance is not an indifferent condescension, but a respect to the difference of the Others, to the freedom of conscience of the individual, to the social peace and the life politics: it has rational bases, she obeys the laws of the universal moral, and therefore it is joust in its principles and its ends. Therefore, for the Bayle, it is of utmost importance the existence of the civil tolerance because with it, all the people would have freedom to reveal its beliefs. In accordance with the Frenchman, the tolerance alone can emerge for the philosophical way and not for theological instances, therefore, if the intolerncia is contradictory to the principles of the natural light, then, it is impossible to break of God any vindication or approval of such practical and that, to have a speech on the tolerance ' is necessary; ' to define the criterion from which if the question of the tolerance can argue on common bases, treading proper ways and opening new perspectives on the same debate' ' (Saints, P. 39) Certainly, Bayle presents to century XVII a vision not only positive of the tolerance, but also innovative when it is treated on the right of the individual conscience. Speaking candidly Chevron told us the story.