Religious Pluralism versus Tolerance

Continuing my recent theme of religious tolerance, and why it is not good, and what are the alternatives:

“Eboo Patel is an American Muslim of Indian heritage. Brought up in Chicago, he struggled in his youth with his cultural background and came to understand how different faiths could be the source not only of mutual enrichment but as readily could become mutually exclusive. At school he witnessed religious discrimination at first hand as to his shame he turned away when his Jewish friend was subjected to anti Semitic taunts. Patel was no stranger to bullying himself on account of his faith origins. Most importantly, his own upbringing made him consider the forces that determine whether a youngster follows a route of hatred against the world or takes the alternative and happier route of love and compassion for all. He realized that much depends upon whom you meet when you are at your most impressionable. He saw firsthand that the twenty first century is being dominated not by the color line but by a different line, which he calls the faith line. This, he points out, is no less divisive and no less violent than the color line. The faith line does not divide different faiths, or separate the religious from the secular. This line is divisive between the values of religious totalitarians and the values of the religious pluralists. The former believe that their way is the only way and are prepared to convert, condemn or indeed kill, those who are different, in the name of God. It is this side of the faith line that gives religions a bad press in the eyes of the secular public. The pluralists on the other hand hold that ‘people believing in different creeds and belonging to different communities need to learn to live together in equal dignity and mutual loyalty.’ Pluralism is the belief, Patel explains, ‘that the common good is best served when each community has a chance to make its own unique contribution.’ What Patel soon realized was that the dangerous religious fundamentalism we see around us is nurtured in the young, in the disaffected youth of our day who are taken advantage of and exploited for fundamental political aims. It is those youth of today who fuel the religious conflicts we witness, who martyr themselves while they kill or maim thousands. He also knew that the main faith leaders over the decades who have campaigned for justice and peace, leaders such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela all started young; they became active while still in their youth.
Inspired by this knowledge Patel saw that there could be no better place to make a start in trying to achieve a harmony and a common good among all America’s variants of religion than with this youth of today, those who will shape and see tomorrow’s world. It was against this background that in 2003 he founded the Chicago based Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC).
The idea of the IFYC was simple. Its mission is to build ‘a global movement of interfaith youth cooperation by generating mass public support for interfaith youth work, equipping youth-focused institutions to positively engage their religious diversity, and nurturing the emerging leaders of this movement.’
This has become an extremely successful organization with a multimillion-dollar budget. It actively involves tens of thousands of religiously diverse young people in projects that are taking the message of religious pluralism to millions across six continents.”

References:

Interfaith Youth Core at www.ifyc.org
Eboo Patel, Acts of Faith: the Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation, Boston: Beacon Press, generally and at p. 61

© Eleanor Stoneham 2011 quoted from Healing this Wounded Earth: with Compassion, Spirit and the Power of Hope, O Books 2011

Tolerant Oppression and the Olympic Prayer

I wrote recently of tolerance, in particular religious tolerance, and how I now see that this is not the right way to further interfaith relations; that tolerance is “putting up with,” not celebrating, accepting, respecting, appreciating, our religious differences. And tolerance in fact is a breeding ground for simmering resentment, that can erupt in violence if the right conditions present, in the same way that a smouldering bonfire can suddenly burst again into flames if the breeze comes in the right direction at the right time.

The Church of England has released an Olympic Prayer for those preparing for the 2012 Games, asking God to be with the athletes, their supporters and families, and the thousands of churches preparing events in their communities in the run-up to and during the Olympics. It has been written by The Rev Duncan Green, the Church of England's Executive Olympics Coordinator, and includes the sentence; “we pray for a spirit of tolerance and acceptance, of humility and respect.”
Now acceptance, humility and respect I can endorse wholeheartedly. But why link acceptance with tolerance?

In his superb and very thought provoking book Tolerant Oppression: why promoting tolerance undermines our quest for equality and what we should do instead, Dr Scott Hampton at page 24 claims that by linking tolerance with acceptance, understanding, appreciation, respect, etc, we protect the word from scrutiny, and automatically assume it to be “good.” Why otherwise would we link it with such positive other words? But his whole book works around the premise that tolerance is in fact part of the language of hate. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, he reminds us, never called for tolerance. They called for respect, understanding, and most importantly equality, but never tolerance. In fact Hampton quotes Arun Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson, who warns us that “Tolerance is not only inadequate, it is a negative concept which only alienates society further.” (from Legacy of Love: My education in the path of non-violence)

The Wisdom of Tolerance?

There is an element in the meaning of tolerance that says: OK, I’ll put up with you even though my way is the right way. We talk much about tolerance: tolerance of age, sexual orientation, race or culture or skin colour, and of course religious tolerance.

But is this the right way of looking at things? Not if the underlying agenda is “putting up with”, on the basis that my way is of course the better, healthier, superior, way, the only right way, and you are therefore inferior and wrong in some way.

If we look at tolerance this way, we start off on the wrong foot. I believe all men and women are born equal, with their own unique value and gifts, with inherent worth and dignity. I believe that there is much in all the great religions and faiths to celebrate, to respect, to enjoy. No one religion can claim any kind of high ground.

The Unitarian Universalism movement celebrates the diversity of religious belief, and is guided by seven principles:

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I doubt whether anyone can seriously disagree with any of those principles.
Do look at their website.
From it I quote: “Our congregations are places where we gather to nurture our spirits and put our faith into action through social justice work, in our communities and the wider world...There is no formal conversion process, so becoming a Unitarian Universalist is simply a matter of self-identification…and does not require renouncing other religious affiliations or practices.”
There is no creed, as individual members are free to explore their own paths to truth.
Now this looks like something worth exploring further.

Building, not Burning, Bridges between Faiths

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

 

This “Serenity Prayer” as it is popularly called, is generally attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr, one of America’s most distinguished theologians. There is some doubt over the exact history of the prayer, when and where and why it first appeared. Reinhold himself wrote, in the January, 1950 copy of Grapevine, that the prayer "may have been spooking around for years, even centuries, but I don't think so. I honestly do believe that I wrote it myself."

In its Christian prayer form, quoted in The New York Times Book Review, for August 13, 1950, p. 19, it reads as follows:

“O God and Heavenly Father, Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

Now Niebuhr’s great nephew, Gustav Niebuhr, Associate Professor of Religion and the Media, has written an excellent book, Beyond Tolerance: How People across America are Building Bridges Between Faiths.

To quote from the back cover “blurb”: At a time when religious conflict seems to dominate the media, Gustav Niebuhr travelled across America to find people- Buddhists, Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Muslims, Episcopalians – who are all reaching out to find common ground between their faiths.”

And what he found gives us all hope, “a boost of much needed optimism.”

And this is not just about America. The issue is global and the message throughout the book, and the methods used through the different inter-religious organizations, (1000 across America in 2004 and rising), many of which he describes, are of interest and relevance to us all.

“This is such an interesting, well- researched and important book on such a vital topic; it always saddens me that gems such as this seem to command so little interest as compared with the mass of best selling trivia so widely available. We should all care more about the serious issues that are going to affect the future of our families and our world… This should be compulsory reading and on the book- shelf of all those who have an interest in furthering peaceful relationship between faiths, for the building of a healed and better world for us all.” 

This last paragraph is from my full review that can be read at Amazon.com as well as at Amazon.co.uk. Do read the book, whatever your faith or indeed if you have no faith. Despite the dreams of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others, denouncing religion is as futile as King Canute trying to stop the encroaching waves. Far better to forge understanding and respect, beyond mere tolerance.