Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Tolerance

  • Setting the Proper Priority for Tolerance as a Value

    Every so often I have a conversation with someone who knows I value tolerance that goes something like this:

    Q: So you believe in tolerance?
    Me: (Heroically resisting the urge to tear apart the phrase “believe in x”) Yes, I value tolerance.
    Q: But then you have to tolerate intolerant people.
    Me: No, actually I don’t.
    Q: But then you’re not really tolerant, because you don’t tolerate intolerant people.
    Me: (Resisting pointing out the difference between not being logically required to do something, and actually not doing it.) ….

    That one is easy to answer, simply because I don’t “believe in” tolerance as a type of absolute, but rather I value tolerance. One must, in addition, define tolerance, because many people seem to define tolerance as “believing everybody is equally correct” rather than something like “favoring freedom for people to hold ideas I regard as incorrect and take actions I think are stupid.” I mean something more like the latter. I value a broad range of tolerance. My value of tolerance, does not trump my value of private property, however, so I don’t favor toleration for stealing. It doesn’t trump my valuing of human life, so I don’t wish to tolerate murder.

    All that is pretty clear, I think. I think it’s good to find limits to tolerance in our values, i.e. to find out where tolerance stands in our scale of values, and to make sure that it is placed in the proper order. Personally, on the question of tolerating intolerance, while I do not feel logically impelled to tolerate intolerance, since I could treat it like murder, I do try to tolerate intolerant expression. I’m thus strongly opposed to government hate speech restrictions (private organizations can do as they wish), and I question a great deal of hate crimes legislation. Thus my tolerance protects certain people who are intolerant, but not others, depending on their actions.

    But there is another set of limits to our tolerance, ones that we may not even be aware of. I’m going to start by looking in church, and then take a look at Washington, D.C. In the United Methodist Church, I have found some very interesting limits on our tolerance. Now don’t get me wrong here. I’m not complaining of how I personally have been treated. I am noting how people have suggested others should be treated.

    We can, for example, tolerate people who are, by their own admission, either not Christian or barely Christian in United Methodist congregations I’ve known, and even let them teach. I hear occasionally about people who are too liberal feeling they are suppressed, but I also hear about many evangelical candidates for ministry who feel that they are being pushed out of that envelope of tolerance. It’s really a hard set of limits to see, but I get the distinct feeling that our candidacy program is not designed for boat rockers.

    I see much more clearly that while various theological views are tolerated, provided they are expressed in proper theological language by people with the proper credentials, certain types of behavior are much less tolerated. For example, you would get less reaction in some congregations if you said Jesus was not divine than if you raised your hands during a song in the worship service.

    As a sideline, I note that in my experience I can get by with saying things that my wife cannot. She is an RN (graduate of a three year program) author of three books, with 12 years experience in hospice care, ending as a director of education for a regional organization. I have an MA degree in religion (concentration–Biblical languages, which earns respect in many quarters!). If I were programming Sunday School classes, I would find more opportunities for her to teach than for me. There are more people who need her expertise. Yet she is heard much less, which is frankly a tragedy.

    But where I have seen a consistent lack of tolerance is for the charismatic movement. I can see this when I teach about different streams of Christian thought. Presbyterians and Baptists are fine. A bit weird, maybe, but they’re respectable neighbors. But mention Charismatics and Pentecostals, and resistance starts in. Aren’t those the crazy people who speak in tongues? I can feel the discomfort.

    The bottom line seems to be that we can tolerate any level of theological disagreement, but we can’t handle odd behavioral differences. We can’t tolerate being embarrassed. I think that is a line that we need to examine. Which is more important? Which is more substantial. The limits of our tolerance need to be chosen wisely, according to our values. If an embarrassing level of enthusiasm is really that important, then we need to be honest about it.

    There is plenty there for people to question, because I’m speaking subjectively. But I see this in Washington, D.C. all the time as well. What kind of behavior should we tolerate in a politician? In a nominee for cabinet or the courts? I think that our politicians are showing their partisan stripes. Remember that partisanship is not just displayed in opposition; it is also displayed in support, based on party, of something that one wouldn’t otherwise support.

    If we had a Republican president, would the Democratic Senate tend to respond in the same way to nominee problems? I’m guessing that we would have a reversal. Some Republicans and some Democrats would be consistent, but the proportions in each party would change. Tolerance, in that case, is based on party loyalty. We allow things in people of our own party that we would reject in the other one.

    We tend to respond most negatively to things that embarrass us. The embarrassment is more important than any moral or legal issue. Our tolerance is determined not by our values, but rather by what is socially acceptable in our own circle.

    While I value tolerance, I think that it can be extremely dangerous. It can, if it is not properly defined and positioned, provide me the excuse to allow things that I should not allow. At the same time since we all know, instinctively if not consciously, that tolerance can’t really be absolute, we have an alternative excuse to allow ourselves to be intolerant–when it suits us.

    Making the choice to be tolerant or not from anything other than a conscious, well-chosen set of values is dangerous to each of us, and to our society.

  • Free Speech, Appropriate Speech, and Communion Wafers

    The incident in which a university student took a communion wafer from a Catholic church instead of eating it has stirred up an incredible amount of controversy. For background I’m going to link to just three posts, which in turn will allow you to find all the information you want on the incident and probably more.

    These are:

    Those posts and the related links should give you a chance to discover what you want to know.

    There is one particular point I want to comment on myself, however, and that is the confusion of arguments appropriate for free speech as opposed to appropriate speech. What I mean by that distinction is the difference between actions that should be legally sanctioned, and that one might restrain oneself from taking.

    I’m a pretty extreme advocate of free speech. I’m opposed to campaign finance laws because I see them as infringing on free speech. I think pornography should be legal with the exception of child pornography involving exploitation of children. I think it should be quite legal to insult, vilify, and ridicule. I’m opposed to speech codes in most circumstances. (Private property and gatherings are an obvious exception, where people choose to come together under particular rules.)

    At the same time I restrain myself from much of that speech, and there is a good deal that I believe to be legal that I will not listen to or watch, nor will I facilitate its appearance in any way. That includes the majority of what’s classified as pornography. (I restrict this to “majority” because some people have some incredibly wide definitions of pornography. I will watch an ‘R’ rated movie, for example.) I don’t like excessive use of profanity, and make it my aim not to use such language myself.

    But I believe that there must be a difference between what I think is a good idea, and what is legal. That is a difference that is essential to a free, and thereby diverse, society. I like to restrain myself from certain types of insults to whole groups of people. In some cases I do so because I believe that such insults are simply not true. Most general insults (“all Muslims are violent”, “all Christians are bigots”, “all gays and lesbians are promiscuous”) are not true in the first place, and thus truthfulness alone is enough reason not to use them. Others involve simple courtesy.

    Now let me relate this to the issue of the communion wafers and the reaction to them. I feel this one personally because though I’m not Catholic, I am a fairly high church Methodist who holds to a “real presence” view of the Eucharist. In other words I am one of those people who thinks that something happens when the minister blesses the elements of the Eucharist, and I hold those elements sacred. I don’t believe in transubstantiation (though I should note that many comments have indicated an incorrect understanding of that doctrine) but rather that Jesus is especially present through the Holy Spirit. I believe they should be treated with respect, just as other sacred symbols.

    I’m not particularly offended by people who disagree with me on this, but I am offended at the idea of desecration. Let me distinguish a few gradations here. Speech indicating that my view of the Eucharist is stupid is inoffensive. If you don’t believe what I believe, you’ll find my belief silly at best, and my desire to protect some bread and juice as a bit ridiculous. I’m OK with that. A college student grabbing a wafer is a college prank. It’s a little nasty, but the reaction has been way over the top. College students will do silly things. I know I did. (Note here that a Catholic will almost certainly see this act as a more serious thing than I do based on our respective theologies and traditions.)

    Trying to get some communion wafers so as to especially desecrate them is something I find offensive. It diminishes the stature of the person proposing it in my eyes. Presumably that person will not care about that, but it’s important to understand my position. I have no problem associating with and cooperating in many areas with someone who despises my religion. There is a level of action regarding that contempt that will make such friendly relations difficult.

    I want to add one note. At least in my tradition, the fact that bread was made for communion is not the critical issue, so if you “score” the bread before it’s blessed, it would be a simple property crime, and one on an item of very small value. So in order to commit the desired blasphemy and insult, one would need to get bread that had already been blessed, which could get into some interesting legal issues. Just how much can you disrupt a church service without meriting a “disturbing the peace” charge or some such thing. I really don’t know and hope I don’t have to figure it out.

    Now my point here is that I have found some behavior that is insulting to me, something I find very inappropriate and even reprehensible. I can argue why I feel that way, but many other people will not agree with me. Should I be protected from such an insult?

    In a word, No! Barring some action stepping across legal lines in some other area (theft, actually disturbing the peace as opposed to existing where someone would prefer you don’t, violence done to an actual person) I believe the law should permit me to be insulted in this way. The wafer may be the body of Christ to me, but it’s a cracker to the law. The result is much worse if the law starts to recognize something spiritual.

    So what is my own actual reaction? “PZ, I think that was quite rude.” That pretty much covers it. And I don’t want that opinion of mine to have the backing of law.

    [And just to be clear these e-mails to PZ are both rude and illegal, and those who make such threats should face the full weight of the law.]

  • Good News and Bad News on Religious Tolerance

    . . . but which is which?

    MSNBC.com reports on a study of religious attitudes that shows that Americans are still very religious (92% believe in God, for example), but that they are much more tolerant of other faiths.

    Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.

    In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

    With those numbers, what can it possibly mean to be “evangelical” any more?

    While I celebrate tolerance, I’m disturbed by the tendency to identify tolerance with weak beliefs. Unfortunately, that is what is happening. People become tolerant by becoming less committed. The article refers to this as “humility,” but it doesn’t seem so to me. Humility in one’s beliefs would require one to have some beliefs, but to admit that one might be mistaken and to be open to correction. The particular evidence for this is those who try to keep the label “evangelical” while altering the definition.

    I would prefer a society made up of people with strong beliefs, who were willing to defend those beliefs, but were also determined to do so respectfully, and to respect–not agree with–the beliefs of others.

    As one last note, let me add that I think this is the attitude that fosters hate speech codes. The tolerant in this sense are not really tolerant. Rather, they are tolerant of those who agree with them that their religious ideas don’t matter all that much. They are conformists, but they conform to a culture of apathy and indecision. Thus when they encounter someone who doesn’t fall within that culture, they feel justified in suppressing that person’s expression.

  • Tolerance: A Value, Not an Absolute

    In watching some of the material on Dr. Jeremiah Wright today, I’m reminded of the potential problem of tolerance–getting it above its proper rank as a value. I have been confronted numerous times in face to face discussions with the statement that I cannot be truly tolerant, because to be tolerant, I must tolerate intolerance.

    But that is a sort of binary thinking that is, quite frankly, the basis for a great deal of stupidity. For me tolerance is not an absolute. Tolerance is something I value. I do not value it above all else. It is the sort of thing that when overvalued can become self-destructive. To illustrate from the physical world, I value my home. But when a hurricane is coming, I value my life and my family more highly than my home. So I evacuate when it’s appropriate. Some don’t, and end up dead or injured.

    There are a number of comments by Rev. Wright that I am quite willing to defend. I’m even willing, as you will have noted, to defend a large part of his “God damn America” speech, while confessing that I would never have expressed it that way myself. I can get behind the rhetoric to a good point.

    But in embracing Farrakhan, I believe Wright steps over that line to tolerating intolerance. Farrakhan has, in fact, done some good things in the African-American community. but he has more than balanced that with hateful speech and acts, and with his anti-Semitism. Barack Obama was correct to reject (and denounce!) his support. Rev. Wright does himself a disservice by embracing him.

    To quote from MSNBC.com:

    At the press club, he jokingly offered himself as Obama’s running mate and embraced Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan even though he said he doesn’t always agree with him. He criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the U.S. invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said.

    To tolerate Louis Farrakhan in this fashion is to tolerate intolerance, and this is a liberal danger. We wish to be so careful not to be intolerant. We want to be even handed, and love all the disadvantaged, underprivileged, and oppressed people. Those are good impulses. But we need to be careful to draw moral lines. We can desire justice for the Palestinians without justifying their killing of Israelis. We can recognize the economic hardships that contribute to terrorist recruiting without justifying the use made of it by terrorists. We can recognize the need for pride in the African-American community without also justifying a new form of hate and racism.

    Besides embracing Farrakhan, who has stepped way over the line, he continues with the claim that HIV was produced by the U. S. government. Based on things done in years past, I would be prepared to hear it if evidence turned up that some secret agency had done this in some way. U. S. government agencies have done some quite evil things. But the key there is the need for evidence. Right now there is no such thing. One of the nastiest ways one can vilify one’s opponents is by suggesting that they have done the things that they are capable of. We are all capable of some form of evil, but we do not all do everything of which we are capable. Evidence should precede accusation; all else is a smear.

    Rev. Wright should be aware of this, considering that around 10% of the American public believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The accusation has been made, and it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that he is not, some of the slime will stick. A pastor, especially should be very careful with his words.

    I am not going to get into the game of blaming associates of associates, i.e. that Barack Obama needs to distance himself further from his pastor so as to be distanced further from Farrakhan. I didn’t like the “associating with people who associated with communists” attitude during the cold war, and this one is certainly no better. But Rev. Wright is responsible for his own words, and along with quite a number of good challenging ones, he has spoken some that are dangerous, hateful, and irresponsible.

  • Not All Doctrines are Equal

    Before I carry forward into my discussion of the nature of authentic Christianity, I want to link to a couple of posts in which I have discussed my view of what Christianity is. I wish to do this near the beginning, because I will be making a number of statements about what Christianity is not, and it’s easy in such a situation to define oneself by what one opposes rather than by what one supports.

    Christianity is not totally unified. That is an understatement, of course. But while I would like us to be more courteous and open in the way in which we approach one another, I don’t believe it is essential that we be identical in order to be unified. Thus I can object to the behavior of other Christians, or disagree with them on points of doctrine without also regarding them as outcasts. The feeling may even be mutual.

    Not all doctrines are equal. I’m more concerned with someone’s belief on the incarnation, for example, than I am with their beliefs on baptism. I’m more interested in their commitment to the two laws (love God, love your neighbor) than I am about their orthodoxy on the trinity, though I am a fully orthodox trinitarian myself, to the best of my knowledge.

    So here are a few posts on Christian unity and diversity to provide an anchor point before I go talking about how different we are and how much we have changed and even should change. They are in order from oldest to most recent.

    . . . and just for fun Only Evil People Disagree with Me!

    I’ll refer back to these as necessary.

  • Hindu Prayer in the Senate

    My own preference would be that any prayers in congress be privately, not officially conducted. That is due on the one hand to my conviction that we should be a pluralistic, secular society, and on the other to my doubt that politically stage managed prayers are of any value. But given that prayers are offered on the floor of congress, the opportunity should be inclusive, not exclusive.

    Thus I appreciate the effort of Harry Reid in inviting a Hindu to offer the prayer, and I believe the response of three Christian protesters in the gallery was not a good witness for Jesus. The appropriate response would be courtesy and respect, both for the person who was practicing his religion and for the congress which was recognizing the presence of non-Christians in this country.

    For the complete story, see Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted

  • Salman Rushdie Knighted / Violent Reaction in Muslim World

    Update: Or really, just a better reference. I think this story from MSNBC covers the ground better in a single article.

    I believe very strongly that we need to distinguish between radicals who want to kill us, and the very large number of Muslims who are peaceful people. But with the reaction to the knighting of Salman Rushdie, it is again important to point out that we need to be on our guard for violent people, and there are lots of them.

    I am very aware that there has been calls for violence by Christians, or at least those who call themselves Christians. I live near where Paul Hill, a defrocked Presbyterian minister, took a shotgun and killed two people. I’m glad to say that he was a defrocked minister, as in not a minister any more, but nonetheless he did violence in the name of Jesus, and I condemn his actions. I will continue to challenge and condemn all violence and calls for violence from my own or from other religions.

    But right now, in terms of numbers, the calls of violence seem to be coming most commonly from the Muslim world. I have been told that I don’t understand Islam, but my question is just who do I listen to in order to understand. Is Islam a religion of peace and of choice, or is it one that punishes apostasy by death? In many countries at least, it appears to be the latter. Is it a religion that is willing to become part of a pluralistic society, to win converts peacefully through persuasion, and to uphold the freedoms of other religions no matter how high a percentage of the population become adherents? It doesn’t seem so, if one considers those nations that are already majority Muslim.

    Now I know from personal experience that there are Muslims who are peaceful people, good citizens, good neighbors. I believe that these are likely the majority, though I really can’t prove that. But events like this tend to make it hard to keep people’s attention on the moderates:

    Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding under threat of death after an Iranian fatwa, has been knighted by the Queen.

    His book The Satanic Verses offended Muslims worldwide and a bounty was placed on his head in 1989.

    But since the Indian-born author returned to public life in 1999, he has not shied away from controversy.

    A devout secularist, he backed Commons Leader Jack Straw over comments on Muslim women and veils and has warned against Islamic “totalitarianism”.

    And the reaction? Were Muslims the world over willing to allow a man who opposed their religion to be honored? Well, years ago they had called for his death. What would happen now?

    From Pakistan (source: here):

    Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, Pakistan’s religious affairs minister, said giving the title to the author was an insult to Islam and ‘at the root of terrorism’.

    Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses caused worldwide protests in 1989 and led to Iran issuing a fatwa ordering his execution.

    Speaking about the writer at the National Assembly, Mr ul-Haq reportedly said: ‘If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is justified.’

    But after the comments were reported on local news networks yesterday, the minister claimed he did not mean to condone or incite terrorism, merely to warn that such insults against Islam could lead to attacks.

    Or the words of the one Muslim British peer: (from ABC Australia):

    Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed describes the decision as provocative and damaging to Britain’s relations with Muslims.

    “Actually I was appalled to hear that Salman Rushdie had been given knighthood, particularly when this man has been very divisive,” he said.

    “This man – as you can see – not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people that were killed around the world and honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of because of what he did, honouring him I think is going a bit too far.”

    My major point here is that while we must be careful to blame those who are actually guilty, we must also not allow a desire to be fair to keep us from recognizing evil when we see it. The reaction to the Danish cartoons was evil, and so is this. We in the west should not be intimidated by threats of violence. The insult is not the cause of the violence. People suffer insults without violence every day. The violence stems from the evil in the hearts of the people who preach it and carry it out.

    HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars (and commenters there). That article is worth reading.

  • This I Abhor

    I believe I have established here that I like tolerance, but I have also noted that tolerance is a value for me, not an absolute. In other words, I don’t have to tolerate everything. I just believe it’s good to be as tolerant as possible. (You can find some previous comments here.)

    Ed Brayton has written a post, American Imam Calls for Death of Hirsi Ali, in which he cites this article:

    Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.

    “She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976.

    Ed comments:

    Let me explain something to you, Imam. Religions don’t have laws, governments do. Religions have rules which are followed voluntarily by those who choose – note that word – to be members of that religion. If they choose no longer to follow those rules, you are of course entirely free to kick them out of your religion. What you cannot do – and this is a real law – is threaten them or harm them. Period. This is not negotiable, it’s not optional and if you insist on doing so you’re going to find yourself in prison where you belong.

    To which I say, Precisely.

    I go further, however. It is only illegal if the Imam actually threatens Hirsi Ali or takes some actions that lead to harming her. But I personally can abhor whatever I want to, and I abhor the very idea that a religion can threaten a defector with death. It was evil in the Middle Ages when many Christians felt this was acceptable, and it’s evil today. This is not something I tolerate out of respect for someone else’s religious beliefs; it is an evil that I do not tolerate. I condemn it.

    I urge Christians to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists and not to smear an entire faith with the actions of some members. At the same time, any gain in power by Islam as practiced by Imam Fouad ElBayly would be a tragedy for the world. No matter what religion we espouse, or if we espouse no religion at all, we need to be clear on this.

    I believe that there is a cultural conflict arising. It’s not between Christianity and Islam, but rather between tyranny and freedom. Each of us, irrespective of our religious beliefs, need to decide which side of that one we’re on.