Tolerance of Religion vs Respect for Religion

The question of religious tolerance may very well be the single most divisive issue among secular liberals in the west.  From the proposed French ban on female head-covering to pandering defenses of female circumcision, liberals find themselves divided on the question of when and whether it is appropriate to tolerate the institutionalized intolerance that is often a part of religious conviction.  The debate takes on a special vitriol in the United States where minority religious rights are as close to a sacred value as any secular principle could be.  We hold it as a virtue to protect freedom of worship, even if we cannot agree about what god, if any, is worthy of our worship. But, at the same time, we are made uncomfortable when confronted with the racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, and xenophobic descriptions and prescriptions that lurk in the pages of every major religious text.  We embrace liberal theologies that explain away these uncomfortable details, and we shake our heads with frustration when confronted with fundamentalists who refuse to compromise.

The recent controversy over the proposed plan to build a Muslim community center- which would include a mosque- a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood has given me pause to reconsider the puzzle of religious tolerance.  Let me say from the outset that I have no problem with a mosque being built at or near ground zero.  If the United States protects the rights of citizens to peaceably assemble for the purposes of religious worship and fellowship, then it should protect that right for all citizens, regardless of the content of their beliefs.  Moreover, most of the people who are complaining about this "disrespect" or "insensitivity" really just have a problem with Muslims, not the content of their beliefs (which are, incidentally, much more similar to the beliefs of Christians and Jews than are secular philosophies and various other Eastern and polytheistic religions).  So, lest there be any confusion on the matter, I am not on the same side as Sarah Palin and her ilk.  I don’t think building a house of prayer "hurts hearts."  I don’t think every Muslim is a potential plane hijacker anymore than every Christian is a potential abortion-clinic bomber.  And, if places of worship are going to be built, I think the former site of the Twin Towers is as good a place as any to put one.

All of that being said, I don’t think the imperative to tolerate peaceful assembly or private religious fellowship in any way extends to an imperative to respect religious belief.   If your religion tells you that the world is less than 7,000 years old and you believe it, then I think you are an idiot.  If your religion tells you to disown your gay son and shun your immodest daughter and you do it, then I say you’re an awful person.   I can tolerate your believing things that are nonsense so long as you aren’t breaking the laws we’ve both agreed to obey, but that doesn’t mean I respect what you believe.  Moreover, I think I have a moral obligation to challenge your beliefs when you hold them up in defense of a policy that will affect me and other people in my community.

It’s this distinction between religious tolerance and religious respect that is really at issue in the mosque-at-ground-zero controversy.  The most vocal critics of the mosque are not rabid atheists who are angry about religious zealots killing people.  They are right-wing Christians.  Now, leaving aside the possibility that some of the Christian mosque-building opponents are just plain racists, I think the best explanation for why this group opposes building an Islamic house of worship near the former site of the Twin Towers is that they conflate the imperative to tolerate peaceful religious practice with an obligation to respect the content of other people’s religious belief.  Their thinking seems to be that because Muslim belief (among other things) motivated the 9/11 hijackers, showing tolerance for Muslim belief so close to the site of the attacks is an inappropriate sign of respect for the religion.  If you think about it from their perspective, the twisted logic is not hard to follow.  The Christian right is quite fond of accusing the secular left of intolerance. Whether by charging that the left is "closed-minded" for not teaching creationism as a science, or "ignoring the will of the people" when a federally-appointed judge overturns the church-promoted Proposition 8, Christians in this country are fond of painting themselves as the victims of religious persecution.  So, given that the Christian right conflates legitimate challenges to their beliefs with "intolerance," it kind of makes sense that they might confuse the reasonable mandate to tolerate Muslim religious practice with a legitimate objection to belief in the tenets of Islam.

So, let me make the distinction between religious tolerance and religious respect explicit.  Refusing to teach religious myth as science in public schools is not intolerant.   Allowing homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is not intolerant.  Blocking people from building a religious community center on property they have legally acquired is intolerant.  In all three cases, I don’t respect the religious beliefs that motivate the project.  I don’t believe in your God, so what you think He says about the age of the Earth, the sin of sodomy, and the proper way to pray doesn’t matter to me.   In the first two cases, the issue is not private religious belief but the legal definition of the terms "science" and "marriage" which have implications for everyone in the country, regardless of their beliefs.  In the third case, once the legal status of the building property is determined, the issue really is private religious belief.  I am not affected by you praying at your house of worship, but I am affected by you legislating from it.  Perhaps the religious right would appreciate the relative harmlessness of the former if they stopped doing the latter.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Email to a friend


Terrorism, Humanitarianism, and Political Ideology

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the overlap between political ideology and religious dogmatism because of a book review that I read. The book, The Terrorist in Search of Humanity: Militant Islam and Global Politics, draws some parallels between suicide bombers and Western humanitarians by arguing that the men and women who are inspired by Al Qaeda view Muslim suffering as a humanitarian cause and Jihad as a kind of activist justice. I cannot comment upon the quality of the argument because I have not read the book, but I find the thesis fascinating and eerily astute. It also has given me pause to reconsider the question of why people commit acts of mass killing for moral reasons.

Value is arational. We judge the rationality of a person by asking whether his actions are a good means of realizing his stated ends, but ends themselves cannot be evaluated on the basis of rationality*. I have assumed in the past that suicide bombers are irrational because their actions are motivated by some belief about God, God’s will, and/or Divine reward for righteous action. I have reasoned that it is irrational to calculate that suicide will yield a great reward in the afterlife because there is no good evidence for an afterlife, nor for an interventionist God whose will we can know and serve. The crucial point here is not that it is irrational for suicide bombers to value their service to God more than their own lives, it is that they have no good reason to believe that suicide will serve God. That is what makes the act irrational.

In contrast, I have generally refrained from labeling the acts of political martyrs as irrational. This is because the stated goal of many political martyrs is to change some state of affairs in the empirical world. They calculate that their deaths may save the lives of many others, help to promote some noble political cause, or create some positive legacy attached to their names in history, and they value this expected state of affairs more than their own lives. There is nothing irrational about political martyrdom, provided the martyr has good evidence that his death will promote his desired end.

Faisal Devji observes that many of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks did not regularly attend mosque, nor did they conceive of themselves as particularly devout religious followers. Devji advances the thesis that these men viewed themselves as champions of a humanitarian political cause -justice for the Muslim world- rather than agents of Divine Command. It is very difficult to separate religious value from political and cultural value in the Muslim world because they are so tightly intertwined, but Devji’s idea resonates even if the distinction between religious value and political value is blurry. If the religious suicide bomber is motivated by a desire to change the face of this world rather than an irrational expectation that he will be rewarded in the next, then he is no more rational or irrational than a secular political martyr.

I am interested in the rationality of suicide-bombers because this issue has implications for how the United States and other Western countries should approach both internal and external violence in the Muslim world. The cultural war, which is both literal and metaphorical, is often seen as a battle between the secular West and the religious Middle East, and this is in no small part due to the fact that political leaders in both the United States and the Muslim world have couched it in those terms. In response, certain Left-liberal voices in the West have taken the opposite tack, arguing that violent Jihadists and extremely oppressive, authoritarian, theocratic regimes have emerged in the Middle East as a result of the political, military, and economic imperialism of the West.

Though I find materialist analyses of political and cultural phenomena informative, these types of economic reductions fundamentally discount either the sincerity or the intelligence of people in the Muslim world by asserting that their values, including their religious beliefs, are irrelevant to their current political and cultural structures. This is a mistake because beliefs about non-material values do matter. A foundational part of understanding socio-political rules is understanding culture, and we cannot understand a culture until we understand how the people within that culture conceive of values like honor, virtue, and justice. The materialist account that conceives of religious doctrine as a mere tool and cultural and political mores a mere byproduct of the struggle for control over material resources is not only cynical but predictively inaccurate and explanatorily weak. But so too is the account that privileges religious doctrine over all other cultural and political factors. It is obvious that religious texts have a significant influence on cultural values. But, the evolution of religious doctrine -the way in which religious teachings and interpretations of the same text change over centuries- demonstrates that cultural values also exert an influence over religion.

Defenders of moderate Islam speak of it as a “religion of peace” while detractors find passages from the Quran that extol the necessity of violence. It is perfectly reasonable for scholars to debate about legitimate interpretations of a sacred text, but these interpretations (even if one is much more accurate than the other) do not explain the contemporary socio-political climate of the Muslim world any more than interpretations of the Bible have ever adequately explained the socio-political climate of the Christian world. This is a key element to understanding the culture war, and it is what makes the idea of the suicide-bomber-for-justice so intriguing.

If a young man sees himself as a part of an unjustly oppressed group that is silenced, marginalized, and persecuted by a dominate and callous enemy, he may find more than comfort in a political ideology or a religious doctrine that confirms his world view, legitimizes his anger, and gives him a sense of purpose and a chance at honor. Under those circumstances it is not terribly difficult to imagine why he might find the idea of a suicide mission to be glorious because it imbues his life with meaning, even without the promise of Divine reward.

A person’s desire for violent justice and righteous vengeance can have equally awful consequences whether it is cloaked in secular or religious rhetoric, and I do not mean to suggest that the rationality of suicide bombers is any sort of defense for their actions. But if it is their perception of injustice that causes them to commit violent acts in the name of God rather than their religious doctrine which preaches that violence is justice, then it is dangerous and irresponsible to ignore the socio-political circumstances that create this sense of injustice. The “holy war” is fought, at least in part, for political and cultural reasons. Facts about geography, natural resources, military armament, and political economy may seem indomitable and opaque, but they are quite malleable and transparent compared to the will of God. People who disagree about the division and distribution of these things can reach compromise because they share values in common and they can recognize those values in each other. Insofar as the Muslim militant sees himself as an agent of justice and not an instrument of God, we may still recognize shared values with him, and it is possible to conceive of peaceful compromises.

*Clearly, Kantians will disagree here. That is worth debating elsewhere.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine