A devout believer of a specific religion, given the strength of her devotion, is likely to hold that the doctrines of her religion are the monolithic truth, and that her gods are the true gods. Since there are many religions, they cannot all be true, if her religion is the true one. Therefore, she must conclude that the other religions must be false. There hence exists a tension between tolerance, pluralism and truth, with religious ideologies as a potential source of intolerance.
Johan De Tavernier examines this tension at the institutional, cultural and theological levels, explaining how our understanding of tolerance has evolved and can be justified. However, there is a paradox between a staunch religious belief and a tolerance for the belief of others. This paradox can be resolved if we understand that in tolerance, justice and love for others is more important than judging whose version of truth is right. I propose some practical measures that believers can take in the face of the challenge from tolerance, in line with De Tavernier’s belief that believers should avoid fanaticism, and instead adopt a quiet conviction.
A Brief History of Tolerance
De Tavernier in his essay Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth posits that “it is quite normal that the stronger your own conception about truth is, the more difficult is it to reconcile with a certain appreciation of a pluralistic culture.”[1] He uses Paul Ricoeur’s three levels surrounding the question of tolerance to guide his analysis:
· The institutional level of State and Church,
· The cultural level which is the opinions, thoughts and views in which people think about their relationship with others, and
· The religious and theological level, which is what the religion itself has to say regarding the question of truth and tolerance.
While an attitude of religious tolerance may be the conventional position to hold today, the reader should be reminded that up until the French Revolution of 1789, the separation of Church and State was unheard of in Europe. Both institutions supported each other and reinforced each other’s power. Religious intolerance was the norm, where both Protestants and Catholics “were convinced that there was no place for other religions [… or even] different confessions of a Christian nature.”[2] This position was already an advance from the Middle Ages when rulers decided what should be the only religion of their people.
The Enlightenment beginning in the 17th century was a reaction against the domination of religion, in a much-trumpeted triumph of reason over faith. However, this epoch did not lead to an abandonment of religion but instead gave rise to a pluralism in religious beliefs. “Freedom of religion, as an individual right to freedom, was born,”[3] wrote De Tavernier. In the West, the rise of the secular state reduced the power of the Church. Tolerance then meant a “curtailment”[4] of the State’s role in religious belief and the Church’s role in the policies of the State. In such a secular state, the state needs to be neutral regarding religious matters – “the State must see itself as the arbitrator between the competing pretensions and not as a tribunal of the truth,”[5] wrote De Tavernier.
The concept of tolerance continued to evolve, from this negative conception to a “delicate positive tolerance”[6] of the recognition of the rights of others to possess and profess their own beliefs, according to Ricoeur. This positive tolerance was the result of a dialectical synthesis of two intolerances – the intolerance of the religious who did not tolerate other religions, and the intolerance of the atheists who did not tolerate the religious. In recognising the rights of those of other religious persuasions and atheists, to exist and profess their faiths, there was some “sacrifice”[7] made at the cultural level for the believers of the dominant religion, since it can be difficult to accept the existence of those with differing beliefs. If the dominant group do not accept that others have a right to profess their beliefs and defend it in the same way the dominant group can, there is a “violence of conviction, or rather […] violence in conviction.”[8] Tolerance would mean limiting such violence.
At the institutional level, tolerance is justified by justice as fairness[9] while at the cultural level, tolerance is justified by a respect for the convictions of others. Such a respect implies that we have to accept that our strongly held religious beliefs are just one among many opinions. At the theological level, violence of conviction was a norm in the past as the religious authorities visited punishment on atheists and heretics out of a “fear of relativism or indifferentism.”[10] However, due to political secularisation at the institutional level and the acceptance of pluralism at the cultural level, the Church also had to change tactics from “conviction by aggression” to a “peacefulness of testimony,”[11] from force to persuasion. How does this be justified theologically?
Drawing on the ideas of key thinkers since the Renaissance, De Tavernier outlines a progression in the theological understanding of tolerance, as well as intermediate setbacks such as the Counter-Reformation. He started with Nicolaus Cusanus in the 15th century, who thought that religions are hypotheses that have to be improved continuously and so they cannot claim to be absolutely and exclusively valid. “[Cusanus] sees the different conceptions of God as projections of the thinking mind about an object, hence their variety,”[12] explains De Tavernier.
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) introduces a humanistic approach “characterised by rational persuasion and spiritual appeal.”[13] He is against fundamentalism, where fanatics impose their religious beliefs on others. He argues that “the Christian God […] precisely wants multiplicity.”[14] Another humanist, Sebastian Castellio objects to killing heretics. Not only did he think such actions were unchristian, arguing based on the Bible, natural law and the writings of the Church Fathers, he thought they were unconscionable – “it is not allowable to kill someone, even to protect doctrine.”[15] Instead, defenders of Biblical doctrine should do so through persuasion.
All these thinkers paved the way for the development of human rights. French chancellor Michel de l’Hopital believes that people came to religion through “good example”[16] rather than through force. Voltaire argues that “force produces hypocrisy and conflicts with the Gospel.” According to De Tavernier, there was a growing conviction over time that the “Christian message itself demands tolerance,” since Jesus never imposed his views, did not use violence but instead convinced his believers through “an affectionate praxis of caring proximity.”[17]
Difficulties for the Religious
However, being tolerant leads to difficulties for the religious. We shall examine these difficulties for Christianity specifically. Firstly, other branches of Christianity and other religions have criticised how Western Christendom has become “too tolerant.”[18] Secondly, the Christian doctrine claims a universal applicability and a monolithic truth, which is at odds with pluralism. This weakening of belief led to a weakening of identity. “A culture that adopts a tolerant attitude loses persuasiveness […] The more tolerant Western industrial societies became, the more difficult it became to give meaning and orientation to experiences,”[19] observes De Tavernier.
He believes that a “sharp profiling”[20] of the religion may be the obvious solution to the problem of a weakening identity but he recognises that such a sharpening might lead to less tolerance. He relates how the media and art world had mocked the Christian faith without repercussions while other religions such as Islam would not have tolerated such a mockery. He wrote the essay in 2004 but the point he makes here is particularly pertinent given the recency of the beheading of French school teacher Samuel Paty in October 2020, for showing his students cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a class on free speech.[21]
By being ‘overly’ tolerant, one may be seen as not taking one’s religion seriously. Even putting aside a comparison with other religions, it can be argued that Christians have permitted too great a relaxation, for instance allowing the birth of their Saviour to be made into a commercial gift-giving occasion, such that Christmas is more associated with Santa Claus than the birth of Christ. Even His death has been trivialised with the now established traditions of egg-hunting and Easter bunnies.
This relaxed attitude becomes starker when we do compare with other religions. Would Muslims have permitted their religious holidays such as the month of Ramadan to be associated with such frivolity? As De Tavernier pointedly asks: “The question is whether one must respect those who pay no respect to one’s own beliefs.” Could this lack of self-respect be a contributing factor why the number of Christians is on the decline[22] while Islam has become the fastest growing major world religion?[23]
Paradox between Religion and Tolerance
The Bible commands Christians to spread the “good news”[24] and proselytise to the unbelievers. How can believers then allow untruths in the form of other faiths to exist alongside her own? Would tolerating such untruths mean she is then tolerating sin and lies and may face condemnation from her god? But did the Bible not also command her to love her neighbour as she loves herself?[25] If she allows her neighbour to go to hell because of the wrong choice of religion or unbelief, is she still a good neighbour? Herein lies the paradox that she faces between obeying the commands in her religion and tolerating other faiths.
According to Quere, the paradox between religion and tolerance is how “every monotheistic religion pretends to hold a lease on truth, and they claim universality while disqualifying other convictions as human inventions.”[26] Is tolerance then possible for the religious? Certainly, others can have their own beliefs but surely those beliefs cannot be true. De Tavernier explains Quere’s position: “In the best case, that weaker form of tolerance is a small honour to the person of the tolerated but not to the tolerated subject itself […] Behind that form of tolerance, an actual intolerance is hiding.”[27] Tolerance is extended to the other as a courtesy though the fact remains that the belief of the other is plainly false. Is this form of tolerance good enough, or as De Tavernier asks: can there be a “fruitful tension”[28] between a strong religious belief and tolerance for other beliefs?
He turns to Franz Böckle for an answer. Böckle argues that the right posture towards tolerance is not about one’s stance on truth but about our relationship with our fellow human beings:
When we talk about ‘tolerating’, the aspects ‘justice and love’ are the most important, rather than ‘judging’. The question behind a tolerant attitude is not at all whether my fellow human, whose conviction I tolerate, is right or wrong, but whether someone has the right not to be disturbed or hampered by the community while practising or declaring one’s own conviction. People do have that right […] as long as they do not violate other people’s rights.[29]
Tolerance means respecting the rights of others. Inherent in this idea is the notion of reciprocity, where we tolerate others so that others will likewise tolerate us. This is in keeping with Kant’s categorical imperative to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[30] Christians will recognise another formulation of the imperative, known as the Golden Rule from the Bible: to “do to others as you would have them do to you.”[31]
What Should Believers Do?
Conversion by the sword, through violence, is no longer an option today, though in the past, it was the norm. For better or worse, society almost everywhere has evolved to become secular and believers have to navigate their way around a long list of controversial topics. Those of the moment around the world include abortion, euthanasia, suicide, sexual promiscuity, decriminalisation of drugs, gambling and sexual orientation. Their approach, if tolerant, may attract and revive the relevance of their religion in a secularised world, or if conservative, might repel this same group. On the other hand, a conservative posture can attract ‘serious’ believers while losing the ‘less serious’ or the impious, which is not much of a loss since they are after all not serious.
From Cusanus to Böckle, De Tavernier has presented arguments for tolerance, but what should believers actually do? I propose some helpful attitudes and actions: Believers ought to know (at least) the key doctrines of their faith well, so they can have intelligent conversations with inquisitive non-believers. They need to try to understand the perspective of others, taking a charitable if not sympathetic view, and be good ambassadors of their religion, acting in such a way that non-believers can see that religion has had a positive impact on their behaviour, even while recognising that the faithful remain fallible.
De Tavernier concludes that while the Truth is not relative, our knowledge of it is always relative since it is always incomplete – no one, not even the church, holds all the truth. Hence, he suggests for believers to exercise a “quiet conviction”[32] and avoid fanaticism. I interpret this quietness of conviction to mean that believers can feel free to be strict on themselves in their own practices but that does not mean they are permitted to impose their comprehensive doctrines on those who do not share their beliefs.
Religious institutions such as the Church and other non-Christian religious organisations have become roadblocks to liberal values. Just one example among a long list of objections from such organisations is the revival of strict abortion restrictions in Poland in October 2020, which is largely attributed to the Catholic Church.[33] Certainly, the faithful are free not to have abortions but it is bewildering why they think others who do not share their convictions have to be bound by them. Believers in religions that does not look kindly on homosexuality such as Islam and Christianity are free not to have sex with others of the same sex or for that matter not to have sex outside of marriage. Likewise, they do not have to change their genders, commit suicide, euthanise, be vegetarians, take drugs, gamble, eat unpermitted food or drink alcohol. They are free to be as strict on themselves as they wish or as they feel they are commanded to be. This however do not permit them to impose their beliefs on others since no one is forcing them to have gay or adulterous sex or do any of the above. The religious in these cases seem to be demanding a one-sided reciprocity, which is not reciprocity at all. It is intolerance.
Conclusion
Tolerance for others’ beliefs is a matter of justice, respect and reciprocity and not so much about who is right on what is the truth. At the institutional level of the State, a neutral justice is expected. At the cultural level, we have to respect one anothers’ beliefs. At the theological level, arguments can be found in religious doctrines advocating for tolerance. As Böckle argues on tolerance, justice and love is more important than judgement.
On a practical level, I propose some useful attitudes and actions such as for the religious to know their own faith well and be good examples in their conduct. In that way, they will be ambassadors for their respective religions. De Tavernier advocates a quiet conviction, which I interpret to be for believers to be as tough as they like on themselves but to not impose their views on others who may wish to adopt more liberal values. As Jesus says, “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”[34]
Bibliography
Biblica. The Bible (New International Version). Accessed November 16, 2020. https://www.biblica.com/bible/.
De Tavernier, Johan. “Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth.” In Incredible Forgiveness. Christian Ethics Between Fanaticism and Reconciliation, edited by D. Pollefeyt, 103–20. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited and translated by Allen W. Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
Majos, Agata, and James Shotter. “Polish Abortion Protests Shake Catholic Church.” Financial Times, October 29, 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/1aec137b-a6d5-4ad3-b397-9abb7fd37241.
Onishi, Norimitsu, and Constant Méheut. “A Teacher, His Killer and the Failure of French Integration.” The New York Times, October 26, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/world/europe/france-beheading-teacher.html.
Pew Research Centre. Being Christian in Western Europe, 2018.
———. “Why Muslims Are the World’s Fastest-Growing Religious Group,” 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Harvard University Press, 1971.
[1] Johan De Tavernier, “Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth,” in Incredible Forgiveness. Christian Ethics Between Fanaticism and Reconciliation, ed. D. Pollefeyt (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 103.
[2] Ibid., 105.
[3] Ibid., 106.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 108.
[6] Ibid., 110.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Harvard University Press, 1971). John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness provides theoretical underpinnings for the advance in human rights. Based on a thought experiment where subjects are in the “original position” where they will be ignorant about the specifics of themselves or their social positions, he posits that they will arrive at the two principles of justice he proposes:
1) An equality for all in basic rights and duties. These basic rights will include freedom of conscience and freedom of opinion.
2) Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
a. Offices and positions must be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
b. Inequalities can exist but must be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.
[10] De Tavernier, “Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth,” 111.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 112.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 113.
[16] Ibid., 114.
[17] Ibid., 115.
[18] Ibid., 116.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 117.
[21] Norimitsu Onishi and Constant Méheut, “A Teacher, His Killer and the Failure of French Integration,” The New York Times, October 26, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/world/europe/france-beheading-teacher.html.
[22] Pew Research Centre, Being Christian in Western Europe, 2018, 37.
[23] Pew Research Centre, “Why Muslims Are the World’s Fastest-Growing Religious Group,” 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/.
[24] Biblica, The Bible (New International Version), Mark 1:15, accessed November 16, 2020, https://www.biblica.com/bible/.
[25] Mark 12:31
[26] De Tavernier, “Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth,” 118.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid., 119.
[29] Ibid., 120.
[30] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. and trans. Allen W. Wood (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 4:421.
[31] Luke 6:31, NIV
[32] De Tavernier, “Tolerance, Pluralism and Truth,” 120.
[33] Agata Majos and James Shotter, “Polish Abortion Protests Shake Catholic Church,” Financial Times, October 29, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/1aec137b-a6d5-4ad3-b397-9abb7fd37241.
[34] Matthew 7:5, NIV
No comments:
Post a Comment