Religious Tolerance - Case Study Example

Religious Tolerance Introduction As society is becoming more secular, religious trends and attitudes are losing power over the masses. Theorists have long predicted this phenomenon. It has definitely been the trend of declining influence of the religious establishments on not only political aspects of society, but society as a whole. The effect of being secular on a society is not always good. A moral decay has come with the secular societies. There has been an increase in crime, a decrease in family dynamics, drug abuse, and a general lack of respect for anyone or anything. Liberals, wars, feminism, theorists like Marx and Kant, and lack of self respect or esteem have been blamed. This paper will examine how secular societies have lost respect for radical religions, thus effecting their attitude toward more traditional and tolerate religions. Western societies have become too politically correct. With the trend of increasing political correctness, Western culture has become over tolerant of religious differences. In the wake of overly tolerant attitudes toward other religions, Western societies left themselves open for the 9/11 attack and the London bombing. This has swung the pendulum in opposite direction creating a zero tolerance policy for any one of the Islamic faith. One must question the willingness of Western cultures to have the attitude of religious tolerance. The answer is simple. Western cultures have fought for civil rights, especially religious freedoms. To understand Western views, one must examine not only the definition of religious tolerance, but the social and moral facets of this issue as well. Definition Aristotle summed up the religious tolerance issue with this quote: ‘A middleground between softheadedness on the one hand (over tolerance) and narrow-mindedness on the other’ (Aristotle). Looking at this definition, it could be that the 90-s political correctness has shifted many from the centre towards either the softheadedness or the narrow-mindendness. This is perhaps why, as we turn to a new century, the New Labour Government is critically re-evaluating the effects of this policy. This comes in a form of a demand on those who are tolerated to embrace integration process rather than resort to the unhealthy creation of parallel communities. In other words they are asked to be tolerant in return for being tolerated. This seems a reasonable proposition and is a necessary departure from the historical context of religious tolerance. In John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration he emphasises ‘the mutual toleration of private persons differing from one another in religion’. The recent address by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, whilst seen as signalling a mixed message on multiculturalism, implies that ethnic and religious minorities settling in the UK, in return for being tolerated have a community duty to integrate and this tolerance on their behalf is of a social rather than religious nature. This could be a good legal ground for not tolerating women wearing a veil in the UK, and relying on the mechanisms of social mobility to regulate the social coherence in society. . Locke’s definition of religious tolerance is useful here. The act of tolerating religious beliefs and practices different to ours instinctively appeals to Westerns, whether one is religious or not. It is plausible to think about religious tolerance in terms of its intrinsic value. It may seem paradoxical then that this critique will often be directed at religion. Especially when confronted with the benefits that secularisation offers. But as religion is the reason for religious tolerance and religious tolerance contains a multitude of problems today’s society continuously struggles to reconcile and resolve, religion does seem to be an obvious target. Bringing the ideal of religious tolerance closer to the real world we must ask some questions. Should we tolerate everything, including a murderer who claims to be receiving a message from God? A suicide bomber, who claims to be driven by despair. Most definitely not. Here we have a first proviso – no serious harm to others. The second proviso is - no harm to ourselves. Not many would tolerate a man, devoted to his religious practice, who is undergoing self mutilation that might eventually kill him. How about catholic priests? A whip here and there, is that a serious harm? Not if the priest is not in mortal danger. Then there is the government and it should not interfere. What they should do is to provide legal protection for minorities, again provided the first and the second proviso. The last proviso is that one should not incite hatred. In Locke’s, A Letter Concerning Toleration, talking about the ‘Duty of Toleration’ he says ‘no private person has any right to prejudice against another person. That is the line – inciting hatred that should confine our last proviso. If this definition is accepted, it seems that the women who wear veils, would fall quite comfortably in the area of tolerance, especially in a way of providing legal protection for them. That does not mean all women should have to accept and wear a veil, or even approve of the women wearing veils. Everyone should be able to express their opinion peacefully. The practical problem here lies in the fact that the political correctness has perverted our courage and willingness to even criticize. Moral objections to religious toleration The issue rests on respect of differences rather than on endurance/putting up with something. Is there respect the woman who wears a veil? The question becomes what to teach children about the importance of religious tolerance. As it happens children are indeed taught about the different religions and the importance of toleration. They often have no idea what atheism. The current legislation, based on the 1953 Education Act says that all schools in England and Wales should provide daily worship. Is it not intolerable in itself to force young people to worship at schools? This could underestimate and suppress children’s ability to contemplate critical thinking. In the recently published book by philosopher Stephen Law, The War for Children’s Minds, a defence of liberal moral and religious education, he states that this is exactly the problem. Liberals are often accused of moral relativism, he states, but what is happening is schools today resembles moral relativism : Jesus is God is true-for-Christians, but false-for-Muslims. Also, if a child is being asked to unquestionably accept a woman teacher wearing a veil, with good intentions to tolerate, it may be undermining the need of a child to question whether this is right and why is it right for some and not right for some others. Conflicting values - Liberty values over our private values In the case of a woman wearing a veil, our toleration might be understood in terms of her right to choose. On the other hand, the question becomes whether this is really her choice. J S Mill objects in On Liberty, noting that one’s own good is not a sufficient warrant for our interference. Is interference warranted in this instance? The recent UK survey shows that there has been a significant increase in women wearing veils, many do so by choice. Following the September 11, many see this as an act of solidarity, expression of their pride in their religion and cultural heritage, and rebellion against the increased unpopularity of Islam. The real issue objection to women wearing a veil is that it represents a symbol of oppression and women’s inequality. Indeed hijab at least, headscarf originated in Lebanon in the 1970s by the Shia Muslims so that their women can be differentiated from Suni women, is a symbol of repression. By being religiously tolerant of these women may be perpetuating this repression. It is this crucial distinction an appeal to – a point at which not harming someone (physically or by an insult, causing psychological damage) but expressing our critical view. This critical view is to be accepted by the side tolerated. Yet it is an emphasis on religious tolerance that may restrict critical questioning, and by reducing fear on one side (woman wearing a veil) through legal protection, increase the level of fear on other side, a person being afraid to openly criticize her. Self preserving motivation This objection links up to the issue of reciprocity and secular values. The Archbishop of Canterbury states that women should be allowed to wear a veil. This might be understood as a defence of religious freedom, but threatened by the prospect of secularisation, it would be reasonable to think that this has something to do with a self preserving purpose. The ‘religions’ should be united in our quest to secure our position against a tide of secularism. The secularist contribution, on contrary, has not self preserving motive in justifying any religion. Secularism would favour a liberal form of religion, any religion, to authoritarian forms. Liberal secularism at least as authoritarian secularism wouldn’t tolerate either. It is a liberal secular position therefore that forms a good defence for liberal forms of religion. The crucial problem here is that the side that is tolerant (in Britain) can be described as liberal (secular and religious) and is tolerating (in the case of women wearing veils) a highly radical form of a religion. Utility/Prudence It may be useful to look at religious tolerance in terms of its function, utility. Utility being the maxim and of an agent’s action. Not necessarily in a hedonistic utilitarian way of promoting happiness (advocated by J S Mill and J Bentham) , but rather is a more common sense way that emphasis the functioning of an agent’s action. The following template can be used: (A) equality and reciprocity → (B) Religious tolerance Equality here is seen as such that eliminates moral and legal superiority of one religion over another. This was the problem in the past. This equality doesn’t address the concept of pluralism – all religions are equally true, but ensures that they are equal in terms of being liberal or authoritarian. A liberal religion can be equal only to other, equally liberal religion. Reciprocity ensures equally authoritarian/liberal religions tolerate one another equally. In this case it is A provides a function for B at any level of B. It is obvious what would happen if religion is moved from this equation. No reason to tolerate and no killing. No suicide bombing. It is this basic human passion for no killing that should override any overly concerns for religious tolerance. Rather than eradicating religion from ones mind, just moderate them. The only way to achieve the more beneficial moderate positions of religious is if, rather than tolerate sharp ends (like in the case of radical Islam), apply the pressure, thought setting limits to tolerating, on them to moderate. The Government’s (Jack Straw’s in particular) recent initiative to open the debate on women wearing a veil initiates that option. Not an attack on anyones liberty and freedom to choose, but rather an intelligent pressure put on radical forms of Islam to modernise. Religious tolerance and the prospect of conflictowHoHo jjjjhh As well as having a virtuous purpose, religious tolerance suggests a way of reconciling differences and preventing conflicts based on these differences. John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration, supported this view. His prediction of conflict based on religious tolerance is still supported in modern politics and only recently is beginning to be questioned. To quote, a line from an introduction from a recent edition of this book: ‘to read this historical record is to recognize, as Locke did in 1660 that modern politics is the continuation of war by other means and that the only means that keeps it from converting back to war is toleration’. A look at some empirical evidence shows the opposite and try and provide a more general objections to this notion. Religious tolerance doesn’t prevent conflict Case : The Balkans Secular totalitarianism in the Balkans, with highly limited level of religious tolerance, prevented conflict. Once this regime was removed, and a high level of religious tolerance introduced, the conflict erupted. It could be argued that the low level of religious tolerance contributed to the conflict but other reasons are still prevailing. The position now is that a high level of religious tolerance encourages extreme forms of religion to flourish (arguably religious freedom), creating sharper differences than before the conflict began. The current UK Government is appealing to the duty of all citizens, including ethnic minorities to integrate. A move too far in this direction could mean the predicament is the loss of cultural identities and a multicultural crisis. This would however provide a higher level of social cohesion and security. Is religious freedom the price we should pay? Socialist models of the past such as socialist Yugoslavia, could perhaps inform our debate on this issue. There, a secular demand was imposed on all citizens. A soft version totalitarian state, Yugoslav people enjoyed many benefits of living in a strong, socially coherent society, and these benefits were weighted against the restrictions of certain liberties such as religious freedom. Religion and people’s religious beliefs were recognised and respected and the choice given to people to go to church, mosque or synagogue or be a member of the Communist Party. Further, not only was religion removed from politics, it was also kept separate from conventional, compulsory schools and was only provides in the form of a supplemental, further education. All religious views flourished in their moderate forms, including Islam. Very few women wore veils. The promotion of religious tolerance, following the recent civil war in the region, brought with it the religious revival in the form of radical Islam. More women wear a veil. Terrorist suspects can be found in the region. This sums up the negative aspect of over tolerance, something that need a careful consideration in our society. Allowing women to wear a veil in Britain (this being a political instrument) is therefore not likely to be reciprocated by terrorist’ toleration of Western values (often interpreted infidel values). The act of tolerating in this instance is not a practical one. Alternative: Intolerance – women should not wear a veil This could have some relevance to the immediate prospect of conflict. It could trigger rebellion, and even more serious conflict. But it could also be the case that this restriction/pressure results in modification of the most radical aspects of this religion. In which case, the hypothetical ground for conflict (religious differences) becomes smaller, reducing the chance of a conflict. Even if the conflict occurs, it would be less devastating than in the original position. Secularist perspective Is secular position something that is part of religious tolerance or something that looks at it from outside? Some would say that ‘no beliefs’ is just another form of beliefs. When tolerated, it doesn’t matter what beliefs/non beliefs are, it becomes what is tolerate that matters – something that is different to our beliefs. This seems plausible at first glance and would indicate some sort of inclusiveness. It is disputable in my view that that religious tolerance is inclusive as it should be in society. And it should be because it applies to whole society, shaping public opinion and legislation. Redefining it into ‘beliefs tolerance’ may combat this overemphasis on religions. The British Education System is an indication of this exhibited through the obligation for all schools to provide daily worship for children, part of their moral education. Children are introduced to different religions in order to promote multiculturalism, and religious tolerance. What is omitted from this Bill is introduction to atheism. Secularism in this sense therefore is not inclusive of all society in Britain. Conclusion High emphasis on religious tolerance, important as it is in our society, restricts criticism/judgement of opinion, based on religious differences. It is also often ill equipped in dealing with the danger of conflict. More emphasis on liberal secularisation could in turn reduce the chance of both predicaments. Religious tolerance, and religions themselves need to have more rigorous critical scrutiny. In a democratic society such as ours where freedom of speech and liberty come at such odds in the name of religious tolerance, it is the limit of religious tolerance that is needed to think about more rather than what choice to make between liberty and freedom of speech. Should women wear a veil? It becomes apparent, through this examination that there are good reasons to say no, not only through our criticism but also in terms of our votes. From the sex equality point of view, this idea is even less appealing. It also doesn’t seem practical because toleration in this instance is something that can be seen as an appeasement in the war on terror and it is not an effective measure. It should be pointed out that if a Westerner travels to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries, women must wear the veil or be arrested. Is it too much to ask our laws be respected like their countries expect? Should society tolerate this intolerance? J Rawls would say, yes, so long as this intolerance doesn’t endanger tolerant society and its institutions. Assume Westerns speak loud against a woman wearing a veil at work (school), even if offensive. If such voices influence the legislation, Western would be guilty of that woman losing her job. That would be outrageous. What in fact should happen, is for men in that society to realise their woman should not wear a veil, before she loses her job. Nevertheless, if the lack of tolerance offends, causes reaction, and ultimately, eventually moderation of one religion, the next time Westerns come to tolerate, there will be less to tolerate. Westerners will have less to say, be less to offensive to one’s right to choose and one’s liberty. The notion of liberty and freedom of speech will be less at odds. And if this happens, the means would justify the cause. References Locke, J. (1968) Epistola de Tolerantia. Mill, J.S. (2005) On Liberty. London: Digireads. Delahunty, G. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. London: City Lights Publishers. Newman J., Foundations of Religious Tolerance (Univ of Toronto Press, 1982) Heyd, D. (ed) Toleration (Princeton Univ Press, 1996). Ryan, A. (1996) “Liberalism”. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. R. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds). London: Blackwell Publishing. Macedo, S. (1996) Toleration and Fundamentalism”. Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. R. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds). London: Blackwell Publishing. Law, S. (2006) The War for Childrens Minds. London: Routledge. Read More