Intolerance from Christians
by Jim Gentry
Intolerance for other Faiths
In your Ask an Elder section, JG from Houston says:
“I am constantly shocked by the lack of tolerance that many Christians exhibit for other faiths.”
Meaning of “Tolerance”?
What does JG mean by “tolerance?” Does he mean that Christians will not allow the competition to live? This would seem unlikely since Christianity has demonstrably been among the most reliably docile of beliefs–love and compassion and charity being required by the founding documents. Whatever misbehaviors of ‘Christians’ in history are in violation of Christian doctrine. These human misbehaviors do not refute the documents that forbid them! There were many involuntary ‘Christians’ following Constantine. It’s one of the things that happen when the government gets involved. And nary a Christian has ever been perfect.
Validity of Competing World Views?
So it seems more likely to me that JG means that Christians refuse to acknowledge the validity of competing religious world views. Well, first, so do they! The Sikh, Unitarians, and Baha’i, seek to reconcile these mutually exclusive systems but the major views are blatantly contradictory, as their adherents rightly note. These documents say what they say, and they say contradictory things! Of course that has proven to be a problem, and at least one group is enjoined by their documents, explicitly, to engage in conquering the rest.
Danger to No One
The Christian documents [the Bible] instruct only that you talk with anyone interested, and love and behave well towards them even if they reject it. Christianity, properly understood, and this part is not difficult, is a danger to no one. I believe Christians may exercise self defense in some cases, but otherwise even vengeance is forbidden.
Are Exclusive Truths Dangerous?
JG from Houston says,
“I am drawn back to the writings of Eric Hoffer surrounding the holocaust and the nature of truth. He noted that any group who believes they hold the truth at the exclusion of all others, does so at the peril of the world. Clearly Hitler was an exaggerated version of this sad reality, but the recent Muslim terrorist attacks demonstrate the Islamic version of this idea. I believe you could argue that America’s invasion of Iraq (and saber rattling over Iran) likewise, represent the Christian version of this madness.”
What is “Truth?” Is there such a thing?
JG’s reference to Eric Hoffer uses the phrase “the nature of truth.” There is no “nature” of truth except that it describes an extant scenario/process accurately. That this can be difficult to ascertain does not mean that whatever one sincerely believes has some correspondence in reality somewhere. Otherwise, what are we to do with the words ‘opinion,’ and ‘mistaken?’ Truth is – what is, whether any of us gets it right or not. This is science itself. Subjective “truth” is either truth or delusion. The rest is sophistry. It really is as simple as that or what is science doing?
I admit that this is true only for tangible, testable, empirically verifiable things, but the other documents [holy books] fail in this.
Are Abstractions true or false?
Actually, I would argue that conjectural arguments regarding intangible abstractions are either true or false as well, but we have no empirical standard by which to verify them. We are limited to judging their logic, and application, not whether they are actually accurate or “true”. Could there be an inaccurate conjecture? Would it be “true” outside the mind of the speculator?
JG says that Hoffer: ‘noted’ that:
…”any group, who believes they hold the truth at the exclusion of all others, does so at the peril of the world.”
Hoffer may have ‘noted’ this but has he shown it to be true? I don’t think he can, but I have not read him. What do we Christians have to fear from the large group of people who believe this “truth” phrased so dogmatically?
Are misbehaving Christians being “Christian”?
Christians who misbehave are not being “Christian” by any biblical standard. Violent Islamacists, on the other hand, can show explicit instructions in their founding documents [the Koran] supporting their behavior. How is this not a patently obvious distinction? The “peril of the world” is not from a religion whose testable claims correspond to reality, does not forcibly proselytize or punish unbelievers, or restrain their own from departing. Christians do, indeed, see Christianity as the unique truth, but their ‘conquering’ is limited to persuasion, not violence.
A Rational Religion which corresponds to Reality
I ‘note’ that Christianity is the only rational religion as well, since it is the only one that can be reasonably demonstrated to correspond to reality in all of its testable claims. The reasonable skeptic will admit that he must refute this claim as much as I am required to support it, which I am altogether willing to do. Is the skeptic willing? To be merely dismissive is so easy, and so quickly accomplished!
To reject “Falsehoods” is “Tolerant”?
All of the other ‘holy books’ fail against the empirical, as can be demonstrated. Yet, born into this world, all of these books confront and sometimes assault us. Is it “intolerant” to ‘note’ this? To reject claims that can be demonstrated empirically to be false is this ‘intolerant’?
How, exactly, is that? What criteria, then, marks our progress? I understand the post-modern argument that everything is ambiguous but this is not ambiguous in the least. The very word requires that you disagree about something yet do not respond with violence.
Intolerant of Murderous evolutionary Doctrines
JG references Hitler, and Muslim terrorists. Ironically, this supports the opposite of his contentions about tolerance I think. I believe, as JG does, it follows from his remarks, that it was good not to tolerate Hitler’s murderous evolutionary doctrines. I believe the same for terrorist elements of Islam.
This does not argue that ‘doctrines’ are inherently evil. Hoffer’s assertion itself contains ‘doctrine,’ [absolutes] does it not? “Any” group?
The problem of imposing Moral Equivalents
The general public [including many Christians], seems to have discontinued recognizing the difference between ideas, people, and behavior. JG himself criticizes Hitler and Muslim terrorists and suggests that “I believe you could argue that America’s invasion of Iraq [represent the Christian version of this madness.” I would like to see an argument that was successful in equating these things in any meaningful way. I have not yet, and JG does not provide one here, but suggests it is possible.
Saying that “Bush says he’s a Christian and he invaded Iraq” would be entirely superfluous to the argument unless shown otherwise by specific evidence about Bush’s religious motives. Are religious motives suspected in the Bosnian bombing? I’ve seen pictures of President Clinton coming out of a church with a Bible in his hand.
[To be continued..]
_______________
Holocaust photos courtesy of US National Archives… www.archives.gov