| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | First, those who claim the right to dissent should assume
the responsibility to debate: Commitment to democratic
pluralism assumes the coexistence within one political
community of groups whose ultimate faith commitments may be
incompatible, yet whose common commitment to social unity and
diversity does justice to both the requirements of individual
conscience and the wider community. A general consent to the
obligations of citizenship is therefore inherent in the
American experiment, both as a founding principle ("We the
people") and as a matter of daily practice. There must always be room for those who do not wish to participate in the public ordering of our common life, who desire to pursue their own religious witness separately as conscience dictates. But at the same time, for those who do wish to participate, it should be understood that those claiming the right to dissent should assume the responsibility to debate. As this responsibility is exercised, the characteristic American formula of individual liberty complemented by respect for the opinions of others permits differences to be asserted, yet a broad, active community of understanding to be sustained. |
| Second, those who claim the right to criticize should assume
the responsibility to comprehend: One of the ironies of
democratic life is that freedom of conscience is jeopardized by
false tolerance as well as by outright intolerance. Genuine
tolerance considers contrary views fairly and judges them on
merit. Debased tolerance so refrains from making any judgment
that it refuses to listen at all. Genuine tolerance honestly
weighs honest differences and promotes both impartiality and
pluralism. Debased tolerance results in indifference to the
differences that vitalize a pluralistic democracy. Central to the difference between genuine and debased tolerance is the recognition that peace and truth must be held in tension. Pluralism must not be confused with, and is in fact endangered by, philosophical and ethical indifference. Commitment to strong, clear philosophical and ethical ideas need not imply either intolerance or opposition to democratic pluralism. On the contrary, democratic pluralism requires an agreement to be locked in public argument over disagreements of consequence within the bonds of civility. The right to argue for any public policy is a fundamental right for every citizen; respecting that right is a fundamental responsibility for all other citizens. When any view is expressed, all must uphold as constitutionally protected its advocate's right to express it. But others are free to challenge that view as politically pernicious, philosophically false, ethically evil, theologically idolatrous, or simply absurd, as the case may be seen to be. Unless this tension between peace and truth is respected, civility cannot be sustained. In that event, tolerance degenerates into either apathetic relativism or a dogmatism as uncritical of itself as it is uncomprehending of others. The result is a general corruption of principled public debate.
|
| Third, those who claim the right to influence should accept
the responsibility not to inflame: Too often in recent
disputes over religion and public affairs, some have insisted
that any evidence of religious influence on public policy
represents an establishment of religion and is therefore
precluded as an improper "imposition." Such exclusion of
religion from public life is historically unwarranted,
philosophically inconsistent and profoundly undemocratic. The
Framers' intention is indisputably ignored when public policy
debates can appeal to the theses of Adam Smith and Karl Marx,
or Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud but not to the Western
religious tradition in general and the Hebrew and Christian
Scriptures in particular. Many of the most dynamic social
movements in American history, including that of civil rights,
were legitimately inspired and shaped by religious motivation.
Freedom of conscience and the right to influence public policy on the basis of religiously informed ideas are inseverably linked. In short, a key to democratic renewal is the fullest possible participation in the most open possible debate. Religious liberty and democratic civility are also threatened, however, from another quarter. Overreacting to an improper veto on religion in public life, many have used religious language and images not for the legitimate influencing of policies but to inflame politics. Politics is indeed an extension of ethics and therefore engages religious principles; but some err by refusing to recognize that there is a distinction, though not a separation, between religion and politics. As a result, they bring to politics a misplaced absoluteness that idolizes politics, "Satanizes" their enemies and politicizes their own faith. Even the most morally informed policy positions involve prudential judgments as well as pure principle. Therefore, to make an absolute equation of principles and policies inflates politics and does violence to reason, civil life and faith itself. Politics has recently been inflamed by a number of confusions: the confusion of personal religious affiliation with qualification or disqualification for public office; the confusion of claims to divine guidance with claims to divine endorsement; and the confusion of government neutrality among faiths with government indifference or hostility to religion.
|
| Fourth, those who claim the right to participate should
accept the responsibility to persuade: Central to the
American experience is the power of political persuasion.
Growing partly from principle and partly from the pressures of
democratic pluralism, commitment to persuasion is the corollary
of the belief that conscience is inviolable, coercion of
conscience is evil, and the public interest is best served by
consent hard won from vigorous debate. Those who believe
themselves privy to the will of history brook no argument and
need never tarry for consent. But to those who subscribe to the
idea of government by the consent of the governed, compelled
beliefs are a violation of first principles. The natural logic
of the Religious Liberty provisions is to foster a political
culture of persuasion which admits the challenge of opinions
from all sources. Arguments for public policy should be more than private convictions shouted out loud. For persuasion to be principled, private convictions should be translated into publicly accessible claims. Such public claims should be made publicly accessible for two reasons: first, because they must engage those who do not share the same private convictions, and second, because they should be directed toward the common good. |
Reference:
- The term "pluralism" is ambiguous. Here is seems to be used to refer to religious diversity.
Copyright © 2002 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-DEC-
Latest update: 2002-DEC-
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
|
Page Translator: