Tolerance/respect (was Church, state)

[Amy Z]

Naama wrote:

> > Of course Christianity is intolerant -  as an exclusive religion 
> (such as Judaism and Islam) it has to be. 

and

> > For many, if not most, Christians, Christianity is a revealed 
> > religion, which means inter alia that it contains statements that 
> > are accepted as true by its followers, and true in the sense that 
> > opposite of those statements must be false.

Yes, many if most Christians believe that.  But is it really the case 
that revealed religion ==> exclusive truths?  Couldn't one 
conceivably believe that God had revealed different paths, equally 
valid, to different peoples?  (For many people the dividing line is 
between "core theology" and such theologically significant, but 
smaller, matters such as ritual and church organization.  They can 
tolerate wide differences in the latter, as long as people share 
their core theological beliefs.  But it's notoriously tricky to 
distinguish between a core theological belief and the theology 
implied by such questions as "should people be baptized in infancy or 
adulthood?")

I heard a very interesting talk by a rabbi recently about his 
grappling with the "chosen people" passages.  They made him very 
uncomfortable, as they did many members of his synagogue; they 
conflict with their strong feeling (derived not only from post-
Enlightenment, liberal US philosophy, but from Jewish teaching) that 
the Jewish people are *not* ipso facto superior to others.  He cited 
another passage in the Bible (Isaiah?) in which God makes it clear 
that he has positive plans for many peoples--something along the 
lines of "never you mind about the Hittites, I'll tell them what I 
have in mind for them."  The implication of that passage is that the 
Jews may be chosen for this particular message, the one given in the 
Jewish Bible, but that God gives other messages to other people.  A 
sort of separate-but-equal deal, except without the 
unconstitutionality.

David continued:

> > This means that, for many Christians, it is a corollary of their 
> > faith that some other people are wrong in their beliefs.  I 
> believe the same is broadly true of Judaism and Islam <snip>.
> 

Laura wrote:

> it depends on what you mean by "intolerant".  If a person holds a 
> belief, then it follows that he will reject as incorrect any belief 
> that is inconsistent with his own.  I don't think that's intolerant 
> per se; tolerance has to do with how able you are to live and let 
> live.  

I agree.

> Judaism rejects outright any belief system that isn't 
monotheistic.  
> Our texts are pretty hard on pagans-I'm taking a class on Prophets 
> and it's pretty bloody.  The Jews-on God's orders- slaughter whole 
> cities down to the last animal.  Funny, we didn't learn this stuff 
> in Sunday school...

Yeah, read Joshua and Judges sometime.  I think the world would be a 
much better place if everyone would pay 10% more attention than they 
do to the parts of their history that are unsavory.  In Judaism, at 
least, you have to look at it for many weeks of the year (the Jewish 
lectionary encompasses the entire Torah [five Books of Moses], in 
contrast to the Christian lectionaries that pick their favorite 
passages).  But it's amazingly easy to skip over the parts you don't 
like, just the same...

> Anyhow, we don't expect everyone to be Jewish, 
> nor do we actively seek converts.  What we advocate for is 
> monotheism and adherence to a basic set of broad ethical > 
behaviors.  

And even then, Jews seldom proselytize.  I grew up Jewish and was 
never given the idea that I should talk to Hindus and Pagans about 
their little polytheism problem.
  
> I myself am not fond of the term "tolerance" in the first place.  
> There's a theologian named Stephen Carter (I think he's at Harvard)

He's at Yale and is actually a lawyer rather than a theologian, in 
terms of his training.  But he made a splash with "The Culture of 
Disbelief," which is a very interesting and thoughtful book even 
though I disagree with the blanket assertion that US culture is 
hostile to religious belief (we're one of the most church-going, God-
believing nations around), and he has written more since about 
religion and public life.
 
> who wrote in one of his books that the word implies the power to 
> allow or disallow others to exist.  That is, if we can decide to be 
> tolerant, we can also decide to be intolerant and persecute those 
> who don't believe or act as we do.  Instead, I think we should use 
> the word "respect" or some other term that suggests more of a 
moral  
> imperative and less of a power exercise.  I don't feel that I have 
a 
> choice whether or not to "tolerate" others; they have the same 
right 
> to their beliefs as I do. 

I like your distinction, though it seems we need something between 
generous "respect" and grudging "tolerance."  I not only tolerate, 
say, Biblical literalism, but I entirely support and accept others' 
right to hold that position.  I can't honestly say I respect their 
position, if by "respect" one means "hold in esteem," but as a 
corollary of humility, I believe I need to accept the possibility 
that their way of perceiving things is better than my own, even 
though at the moment I believe my beliefs are more correct (otherwise 
I wouldn't hold them).

Sad to say, you do indeed have a choice whether to tolerate others.  
You can pass laws against their practicing their religion, or even 
beat them up or kill them if you can get away with it--and if the 
legal system is biased enough toward your religion and against 
theirs, you may well get away with it.  It happens all the time, 
though, thankfully, less here in the US than it used to.  So mere 
tolerance is no small step forward.

To me, the division between church and state is about enforcing the 
merest kind of tolerance:  you may not coerce others into religious 
practices they don't believe in.  Government itself has great 
coercive power (e.g., over children, who are required by law to 
attend government schools or pay for a government-approved 
equivalent), so it's very important to tread carefully.  Carter 
explores some of the tricky parts.  
 
David wrote:

> > Now there are two very peculiar characteristics of human beings 
> that come into play here.  The first is that many people, when they 
> are told by somebody else that something they believe is incorrect, 
> they feel persecuted.  The second is that when they see somebody 
> > believing something incorrect they feel that it is worth trying 
> the use of force to change the other's mind.

I have received very defensive reactions from Christians simply by 
the statement "I am not a Christian."  No matter how gently, 
respectfully, and matter-of-factly I state it, and no matter how 
warranted the statement in the context (e.g., we're having a 
discussion about our theological beliefs), a few otherwise 
intelligent and accepting people have bristled and wondered why I 
felt the need to say it.  Considering that 5/6 of the people in the 
world are not Christian, one would think they had long since accepted 
the fact that the person they are talking to might not share their 
beliefs, but they seem positively affronted.  

It isn't that they don't get that not all ministers are Christian, 
either--that does happen sometimes and is more understandable to me.  
I think that deep down--as used as they were to people of other 
faiths (this was in a very ecumenical and interfaith theological 
school), as little as their strand of Christianity emphasizes witness 
and proselytizing, and as appalled as they would have been by any 
kind of violence or coercion of adherents to other religions--they 
harbor a belief that in an ideal world, everyone would embrace Jesus 
Christ the way they do.  Just my theory.

Merry Christmas, then, everyone who celebrates it--and if you don't, 
have a lovely day.

Amy Z