Religious Toleration
The manger scene in front of the civic activity center near R's new apartment.
The sign reads "THIS DISPLAY DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY ONE RELIGION." That is counterfactual but I'll give them an "A" for effort. The photos were taken last week; when I drove past this morning, the sign had been torn down.
Every Christmas Eve and Easter I get paid to operate a video camera for the services of the church I used to work for. As I sat listening to the sermon titled "Yes Sam Harris, There Is A God", in between moments of slack-jawed astonishment that any pastor would make a favorable comparison between Santa and one of the most intellectually sophisticated ideas in human history, it also occurred to me to wonder: "If we secularists are really all that intolerant, how would he explain my presence here?"
I'll tell you how I explain it. Friendship. It's not some forced artificial obedience to an ideal of tolerance, it's sincere friendship with the pastors, staff, and members, pure and simple. I was no less chummy with the organist just because he thinks I shouldn't like technology so much, no less nervous around the cute girl just because she thought R should have treated her medical problems with prayer, no less friendly with her dad just because he agrees with Jerry Falwell about 9/11 being a punishment from God, because one learns that ideology is best left on soapboxes and set aside otherwise. With doctrinaire standards, none of us could have any friends. Better yet, I like to think of my life as a web-comic starring a cast of eccentric and opinionated goofballs like myself. That makes everybody seem lovable and their quirks enrich my experience. If that's not toleration I don't know what is.
Sam Harris might agree. He's one of my personal heroes, and I don't think the pastor's unflattering interpretation of "Letter To A Christian Nation" was more accurate than Harris' unflattering interpretation of the Christian bible. Harris, and Dawkins, and Dennett, are remarkably civil and even gentle. It's difficult to recognize that, because faith has had sacred cow priviledges for so long that any opposition is seen as ugly.
I recognize good people. I've learned that the virtue or monstrousness of someone's opinions seldom has any correlation to the virtue or monstrousness of their behavior, so we must be judged by actions. Given a set of extremely different drivers who approach your broken-down car on the highway, one driver who is a racist pig, another who is an atheist, another who is devoutly religious, and so forth, the odds of which one will pull over to help you is pretty much even. Sweet and kind people can mouth the most awful atrocities while on a soapbox but not go through with them when they witness real people in real pain; the other side of that coin is that sociopaths can be very gifted at faking what you want to hear.
That goes to show that Matthew 12:34 is another place Jesus of Nazareth was wrong, by the way. On that note, if I ever write a book of the type Harris, Dawkins and Dennet have written, one advantage I have that they lack is a knowledge of theology.
Happy Holidays, everybody. And no, there is no formulation of well-wishes that would offend me, so don't worry about it.
Comments
metalfatigue on Dec. 26, 2006 10:23 PM
Sweet and kind people can mouth the most awful atrocities while on a soapbox but not go through with them when they witness real people in real pain….
That's a good point, and one I almost always forget. Hypocrisy cuts both ways.
On the other hand, if someone explains in considerable detail why you should be killed, it's probably best to proceed as though they will do you ill if given the opportunity, unless and until significant evidence to the contrary develops. That means avoiding them if possible or handling them with lead tongs if not, which in turn means that any exculpatory evidence is unlikely to be found.
zifferent on Dec. 27, 2006 6:10 PM
Two points:
First, I don't believe tolerance is the goal. Embrasure of the differences between people I feel is important.
Tolerance is like saying, "I can barely stand to be in the same room with you. I don't care about you, and when you are done speaking I will have moved on without even considering you're thoughts." It's only one step away from shunning and two from hate.
Embracing the differences in people, allows you to consider (even cynically) others' beliefs (fictional or not) and understand their point of view even if you don't agree with it. It says to others, "I think differently than you and that's okay because I understand that you are a different entity, and as such won't hold the same position as me anyway. I'm devoted hear and understand and occasionally even learn from your strange-to-me viewpoint."
I see that kind of attitude as the kind that builds societies, and bolsters disparate groups of people. I truly think it is the glue that keeps conventions alive.
Variety truly is the spice of life.
Next, as far as actions speak louder than words. I would tend to agree, with exception that words and their fore-bearer thoughts is where it all starts.
_
"Thought is the seed of action; but action is as much its second form as thought is its first." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
_
In addition I tend to see that people who think violence tend to speak violence and then do violent things. I can't see how one can be separated from the other, and that is from whence Matthew writes in Matthew 12:34.
A more complete quote is here: (I've left out before and after as they deal more with aspects and matters of faith, and hence aren't pertinent to this discussion.)
_
33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
35 "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.
_
In this he's speaking to the Pharisees that I attempting to trip him up in his words, so if the language is bit harsh it's because Jesus is chastising this group of people as well as enlightening the rest of the throng that at this time was accompanying Jesus and his disciples. This is in answer to the accusation posed by the Pharisees:
_
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons."
_
and also pertinent to understanding this scripture is another part of Jesus's answer:
_
25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?
_
Basically, he's calling them out. Stating that an agent of the devil can't cast out demons and in the end calling the Pharisees serpents that spew forth venom in their words.
Of course being raised Catholic, my knowledge of the bible is usually a little flawed and most likely not as voluminous as Matt's, but that's how I interpret it.
matt-arnold on Dec. 27, 2006 7:33 PM
You'd think this would be true more often than it is, but it is true that beliefs (when they are more than just lip service) tend to lead to actions.
The harms that come from believing by faith (which I'll discuss in a forthcoming journal post) are why we outspoken secularists practice consciousness-raising. What I'm getting at here is that consciousness-raising doesn't work by shunning individuals, but by attacking ideas, building relationships and being open about what one believes.
Another topic I should cover soon is the difference between consciousness-raising and evangelism. To sum it up, evangelism is venturing out from an isolated subculture and a sheltered mindset, to reach somebody who either you don't understand, or is already sympathetic and ripe for the plucking. Consciousness-raising involves figuring other people out and helping them understand you.
flutterby68 on Dec. 27, 2006 8:46 PM
Merry non-denominational secular festival of commerce.
Anonymous on (None)
Anonymous on (None)
Anonymous on (None)
Anonymous on (None)
Leave a Comment