On Tolerance and Humility
I have not added to the writings on this website in a long time. During the long and unpleasant political season we have endured over the past few months I took a hiatus from writing. Having survived our unreasonably long and acrimonious political campaign, it appears that progressive ideas have triumphed over the ignorance, ideology, hypocrisy, selfishness and partisanship of the previous administration and its legacy of trashing our economy, our values and our national reputation. We hope for better days ahead.
I am grateful to those who have written to me with encouragement to carry on and to expand on the ideas already presented because they served as a constant reminder that I needed to get back to work.
Hereafter I will focus less on theology and more on social criticism and commentary from the perspective of a progressive Christian and a Humanist. Parenthetically and obviously as should be clear from my previous writing on the subject of Christianity, I identify myself as a Christian because I take seriously the teachings of Jesus and his ethical demands and a Humanist because I believe the skies are empty and because I choose to stand with my willing and committed neighbor in our common struggle to realize our humanity and to improve our human condition. That means we join willfully and enthusiastically in the struggle for justice, for freedom, for a share of this world's resources, for fundamental fairness, for human dignity, for food on the table, for the right of medical care and treatment, for peace and security in our daily lives.
During this fallow period I observed with alarm and disgust the tendency of both the print and the broadcast media to misuse the term Christian and thereby to play into the hands of those on the extreme right of political Christianity who claim exclusive rights to the word Christian as if they alone were possessors and guardians of Truth. In our nation there are many Christian groups with widely different understandings of Christianity—the anti-intellectual fundamentalists, evangelicals and Pentecostals; the non-denominational mega churches; the mainstream Methodists and Presbyterians and their more liberal cousins in the United Church of Christ; the Black Gospel churches; and onward to the increasingly more liturgical churches such as the Episcopalians, Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
The media tends to blur these distinctions by designating a single individual as spokesperson for “the Christian view” on the political issue at hand, often a media-savvy megachurch pastor or, when the interviewer is Catholic, a well-known priest or a bishop, rarely a mainline traditional spokesman because that is not likely to “make news.” So the designated spokesperson gives out the right wing religious-political perspective on what are loosely designated as “moral” issues—abortion, gay rights and marriage, etc., as if these were the serious “moral” issues of the day that Christians should be concerned about and as if there was only one Christian perspective on these issues.
Of course that is absurd. It should be obvious to any thinking person that these are narrow social issues out of the mainstream of Christian ethics on which various members of religious communities—regardless of their particular persuasion and whether or not identifying themselves as Christian—have various views that are in conflict with each other, as is true with any other citizens on social issues. The point is that those in the media who think that a particular individual church leader is (or could be) a spokesperson for “the Christian position” on any given issue has got it badly wrong. Equally important, any individual who allows himself or herself to speak as if he or she were (or could be) the spokesperson for Christianity or had some authoritative basis to speak about “the Christian position” has arrogantly and foolishly done a great disservice to his or her particular group as well as to the wider Christian community.
Most of the letters and emails I've received in response to articles on this website have been positive, but not all. A few angry writers asserted that I am not a Christian because I have a different view of what being a Christian means than they do, insisting quite boldly and often discourteously that not only am I not a Christian but that I am an “unbeliever” who is condemned to hell for not believing as they do (but often saying they will pray for me, a nice little bit of arrogant condescension). I suppose I am an unbeliever in their particular take on Christianity, but I am also disappointed and troubled (but not surprised) with the lack of humility, the mean spirit, and the vitriol in their comments.
There is a story told in the Gospels (paraphrased to bring out the point) that one of Jesus' disciples reported to him that a stranger (that is, someone not in their group) was doing good works in Jesus' name, their point apparently being that Jesus should put a stop to those not in their group, and he responded forcefully that it was not important whether they were or were not members of his group, what mattered was that they were working in support of his mission and teachings and so they were allies and followers. It seems to me that this should serve as a model for Christians of how to act toward other Christians who are not members of their particular group.
It may be a truism, but the observation is worth repeating, that the farther to the right (religiously and politically) an individual or group is, the less tolerant they are of the views of others. Tolerance doesn't mean agreement. It means respect for others and their right to hold views different than your own. Liberals are often accused of being soft when they are merely tolerant. They are willing to accept differences in viewpoint, in lifestyle, in conduct, in outlook, without a need to try to force others to accept their beliefs or live by their rules. That is as it should be.
The most obvious current example of intolerance is the Taliban, the right wing Fundamentalist extremists of Afghanistan and Pakistan, who believe (to take a particularly ugly example) that women have no place in public life and should remain uneducated and subservient to the rule of men. Their extremism on this issue leads them to conclude that girls not only should not go to school with boys, they should not go to school at all. That seems to us an anachronistic social attitude that is not helpful to their society, but the Taliban go well beyond believing that their views of education and the place of women and girls in society should apply to Muslims who believe as they do, they want it to be a rule that applies to everyone in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and even beyond their own society to Muslim nations generally, and if they could get away with it, to everyone else) regardless of anyone else's view on the matter. To enforce their rigid antiquarian view they demand that no child above the age of 7 should go to school and they are bombing schools and killing teachers and children in the name of their religion. They are the extreme example of an intolerance that demands that the larger society conform its beliefs and actions to their particular religion-based values. In a similar but less extreme way radical fundamentalist Christians are like the Taliban, ignorant and arrogant but insistent that their views on religion and values must be written into law and other citizens must be compelled to live by their rules.
In a pluralistic and democratic society tolerance of the views of others is essential to peaceful and harmonious social order. One of the implications and preconditions of tolerance (and Democracy!) is maximum personal freedom both of ideas and of actions.
Maximum freedom does not mean freedom without any limits. A wheel may be free to rotate on its axis (axle) but it is not free to wander off in any direction, as it is constrained by its axle. Any social order has limits essential to preserve that order. Freedom is never absolute. Societies have laws against stealing from other members of their society because stealing is disruptive of the social order and laws are necessary to preserve that social order. The same rationale applies to the prohibition against killing (murder) or any number of other social restrictions that disrupt society. Apart from those particular restrictions necessary to avoid conflict and preserve social order, freedom of action and belief are the norm. Private beliefs about what conduct is desirable or appropriate for members of a group are tolerated so long as those beliefs do not disrupt the social order or impinge upon the rights of others. The necessary corollary of freedom in a democracy is that private beliefs about what is right or desirable or good are not written into law and those holding those private beliefs do not try to compel others who do not agree with them to take certain actions or refrain from certain conduct.
An example from my youth occurs to me. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church under the control of a minister who believed and taught that playing cards, gambling, dancing, wearing lipstick or other cosmetics, or attending the movie theater, were immoral and wrong and Christians should not engage in them. These things did not seem evil to me or to my family and so with my friends I played cards (we did not gamble but we played strip poker), and went to the movie theater on Saturday afternoons. My mother wore lipstick and nail polish and did not attend that church. Even to me as a child it seemed obvious that there were greater evils that warranted our attention.
The point is that the minister taught that those values and prohibitions applied to Christians as a sign of their commitment but he did not presume the right to pressure any governmental body to outlaw those activities for all people just because he believed they were wrong for him (and other Christians) to engage in. The fundamental freedom of members of society, which was implicitly accepted by members of that church, implied the freedom to engage in behavior that some believed was sinful or wrong.
It seems obvious to me that if someone thinks that particular behavior or conduct is wrong they should not engage in it, but it is also obvious that there is a wide range of possible activities and behaviors that our society does not believe should be prohibited. A free and democratic society should not proscribe some conduct for all just because some members of that society feel particular conduct is inappropriate, wrong or immoral. Individuals who believe such conduct is wrong should refrain from it, but it is an improper infringement upon the personal liberties of other members of society to attempt to limit their conduct and behavior on the basis of private and personal religious values.
So that the point here is not lost, private and sectarian religious views of right and wrong should not be imposed on the general public no matter how important those views are to those who hold them. One area where this distinction between personal religious values and public law have gotten entangled with great harm to our society is the acrimonious debate over abortion and related issues such as contraception. We concede that abortion is a moral issue for some Christians, particularly those on the Christian right, both Protestants and Catholics, and it is clear that those Christians who believe that abortion is wrong should not have abortions or participate in abortions. Other Christians believe with equal conviction that abortion should not be prohibited for a variety of reasons that must be seen as legitimate values even by those who may not agree with them. This is not the time or place to develop a discussion of the complex issues surrounding the abortion debate, except in the most summary form as a rationale for the distinction between behavior arising from religious belief or personal conviction that believers should or should not engage in and behavior that the believer tries to prohibit others from engaging in merely because one has a private belief that such behavior is wrong.
On the issue of abortion, as a basis for further discussion, note two fundamental points often ignored in the abortion discussions:
[a] The objection to abortion is based in religion: apart from right wing Christians in the US (and I include Roman Catholics) there is no broad agreement that abortion is more than an unpleasant but sometimes necessary medical procedure. Main line traditional Christian groups do not oppose abortion on religious grounds. Abortion has been practiced throughout history in all cultures. Other religious groups around the world have various views on the subject, but it is only right wing Christians and Roman Catholics who seek to prohibit the practice for everyone regardless of whether others share their moral objections to it.
[b] The basis for the moral objection to abortion is that it is equivalent to murder because it involves killing a “baby.” But of course that is precisely the point at issue and asserting this proposition does not make it so. There is no agreement that a fetus is a baby and there is a persuasive argument (based on the Creation Story in Genesis) that a baby is not human until it is born and “breathes the breath of life.” Anyway, the same folks who are so incensed about killing a baby do not seem as upset with U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan or the Israeli Defense Force in Gaza when they argue that killing babies is collateral damage that is unavoidable in war in order to achieve the greater good of victory and to protect one's own troops. Support of war implies that some killing is justified as the lesser evil. Criminals are put to death also. Apparently the concern about “killing” is not an absolute and allows for exceptions when there is a conflict of values. The other side of the abortion issue argues that terminating a fetus is not killing, and even if it was, the right of a woman to live and to have control over the decisions affecting her own body is at least as important as the termination of a fetus. That argument seems to parallel the “greater good” argument as a choice between the lesser of two evils that underlies the justification for killing innocent victims in war.
Not to put too fine a point on it, all Christians do not oppose abortion rights although some Christians oppose abortion for religious reasons based on their understanding of what behavior is right or wrong for them. That is their right, but in a democracy they do not have the right to compel others who do not hold their views to be forced by law to conform to their religious views.
So we come back to the issue with which we began—religious beliefs should not be the basis of the laws of our society. Adherents of religion are free to practice their faith and observances—to attend the church of their choice, to avoid premarital sex, to refuse blood transfusions or modern medicine, to avoid eating pork, to shun modern conveniences, to celebrate Easter—so long as they do not try to require or prohibit any particular behavior for the rest of us based on their religious beliefs.
8 February 2009