Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: 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.

  • 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.