The Necessity of Religious Bigotry
As with many posts and essays lately, I feel the need to start with specific definitions or at least to incorporate the same within the text. The article below discusses whether religious teachings regarding the exclusivity of salvation represent “bigotry.” Of course, they do! However, that is the beginning of the discussion not the end.
Bigotry, which is often colloquially confused with “racism,” is defined as: Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
The article below includes reference to the Latin translation of Catholic dogma, which was an accepted tenet of the Church for nearly two (2) millennia: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus … “There is no salvation outside the church.”
While the author traces the doctrine to Cyprian or Carthage, the sentiment is familiar to almost anyone, who has a passing knowledge of the Bible: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. — John 14:6 (KJV).
If one is a member of a Christian denomination, which believes and teaches the inerrancy of the Bible, this verse, which reportedly indicates the words of Jesus himself, does not allow much wiggle room. Such a believer is likely to “stubbornly” contend that his creed, belief, or opinion is the only one, which will lead to eternal salvation.
After all, is that not the underlying motivation of any religion: A “straight and narrow” moral path leading to a pleasant afterlife?
Matthew 7:13–14 (KJV) provides:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
The bigger question is whether such a singular view is necessarily “intolerant.” “Tolerate” means: To allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of [something] without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
Someone, who genuinely believes that there is a single limited way to salvation, may feel compelled to warn others of what he believes to be a threat of destruction and eternal damnation should others pursue another path. This is the essence of evangelism, proselytizing, and mission work. In fact, such acts are commanded of Christians.
In Matthew 4:19 (KJV), And [Jesus] saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. The command is even more evident and the consequences of inaction even more certain in Mark 16:15–16 (KJV):
And [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Many “evangelicals” would see their mission efforts as acts of love rather than personal condemnation. No matter how often or loudly one may allege, “I’m right, and you’re wrong.” Such an assertion, in and of itself, does not represent a meaningful or effective means of terminating the existence, presence, practice, etc. of someone else or his religion. In fact, many parties, who zealously hold onto incompatible opinions, may agree to disagree. Disagreement need not result in incivility.
Overt oppression in the name of religion cannot be allowed within civil society. Far from being a restriction on religion, I believe that “tolerance” is a necessary element of any successful and widely accepted religion. I would contend that overt intolerance is one of the least effective means of spreading the faith or winning converts. It is much better to live a life that another person would want and choose to emulate. For example, I believe that entrenched intolerance contained within fundamentalist Islam is one of the most unattractive and unfortunate elements of that particular religion. However, a similar command to remove or obliterate other religions is generally absent from other Abrahamic faiths.
A similar institutional intolerance exists when one uses the coercive and compulsory powers of government to enforce the moral tenets of a particular party or religious partisans. The result is a theocracy in which religious dogma takes on the force of civil law. Rather than religion being a personal decision adopted through free will, it is imposed upon a populous by the force exercised by an electoral majority or controlling voting bloc. Compelled belief or coerced conversion are antithetical both to religious faith and to secular concepts of liberty and freedom. This was among the key foundations of John Locke’s seminal work, A Letter Concerning Toleration.
Recognition of this fact gave rise to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….
This provision recognizes that, in order to be most effective, government should be “amoral.” That does not mean that it should be “immoral” (i.e. not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics). However, governments should not be invested in promoting the specific moral objectives of constituents.
The reality is that institutions (including government and the church) cannot possess an inherent morality independent of their constituents or adherents. Institutions reflect the collective moral compass of their members, and this is true whether that compass points in the direction of good or evil. That is not to say that society can be indifferent toward morality. It is imperative that the associated individuals possess and exhibit a personal morality in order for any institution to act “morally.”
Nevertheless, government need not involve itself as arbiter of the finer points of morality. Similarly, government should not promote the particular morality espoused by a specific party or group. Some moral tenets, are almost universally accepted. Specific provisions among the Ten Commandments come to mind: Thou shalt not kill … Thou shalt not steal.
However, certain elements of morality are entirely reliant upon a particular religion. Such tenets, may not be objectively determinable, may not be viewed as “fair” or “just” when applied to certain persons or in specific situations, and may be adopted entirely upon faith. While such tenets may be avidly espoused by the faithful and might be beneficial if adopted by an individual or the society at large, imposition of those less-than-universally-accepted moral rules as civil law is not a legitimate use of government.
Thomas Jefferson encapsulated this idea:
The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Therefore, I would contend that “religion” by its very nature is necessarily “bigoted” and on some level “intolerant.” If every path theoretically leads to the same destination, then why bother to have a map? Are those, who believe themselves to have seen the “Promised Land” and to possess a map thereto, not obliged to share that information to wayward travelers, who may be encountered along the path? Finally, if those travelers initially ignore the well-intentioned guidance, then should they not be warned of the dangers, which are believed to lie ahead?
Admittedly, religion can be and has been perverted by unscrupulous persons, who use religion as a means to consolidate power and to assert power over others. Similarly, the power of our governments, which were established to protect the inherent rights of citizens, have been misused at times to advance the selfish interests of those, who hold the temporal reins of power. There is an almost irresistible temptation to abuse these vast powers in the pursuit of self-serving (i.e. corrupt) ends. This is yet another reason to assure that the associated acts represent the free will of the constituents and are consistent with the best interests of the people, and it is a reason to limit the powers of the institutions to impose a specific course of action or forcible restriction on a reluctant individual or populace (absent demonstrable material harm or injury to the person or property of another, or substantial interference with some concurrent right of at least equal dignity).
Of course, there is no objective certainty that the prescribed path is the right one. There is no way to know with certainty whether other paths may lead to the same, similar, or even a better destination. Liberty and freedom require that we allow each person to blaze and travel his own path should he so choose to do so. Each person may hold firmly to his own opinions and choose to share those opinions with others. This is true even if the opinions are objectively false; his objectives are misguided; and the opinions are founded in ignorance.
No matter how well meaning, it is improper for any party or institution to dictate by force of law a single path no matter how seemingly certain the objective or outcome may be. This is true so long as the dangers, costs, and potential harm are borne by the supposedly wayward traveler and/or he accepts (through intent and act) responsibility and liability for the potential harm or damage to himself as well as to others and their property, which may result from his wayward or reckless acts.
The same rights apply to “misguided” or even objectively inaccurate religious zealots. Tolerance and acceptance go both ways. It is only in a free-flowing marketplace of ideas that value can be determined for competing concepts and ideas. Only through the communication and transacting of ideas, can truth, accuracy, and knowledge be discerned.
Initially, each party must determine the value that he places on his own opinions and ideas. In the absence of a demand for or acceptance of those ideas, the value proposition (i.e. veracity) comes into question. Either the product (i.e. opinion) is modified to conform to accepted (or developing) truth, or one risks having no value of his opinion in the marketplace. Nevertheless, any person may choose to hoard his ideas believing the inherent value, which can only be subjectively determined, to be too high to alter the opinion or belief. Ultimately, that decision can only be made by the individual, who holds the opinion or belief. With time, society may come around to the “heretic’s” way of thinking and proper value may be given to the newly adopted truth. Only time will tell.
