Monday, 27 February 2012
-
Facing Faith and Society: What Does Tolerance Really Mean?
The Wall Street Journal featured a story Friday on “Mormons and Baptism by Proxy.” Mormons believe in performing a temple rite that gives members an opportunity to obtain salvation for their ancestors. The practice has been in the news this week because Holocaust survivors and their descendants are outraged that Mormons have been baptizing those who died at the hands of Nazis -- accusing Mormons of “rebranding” Jewish souls. The Mormon Church has responded by apologizing for these baptisms, which were not of members’ ancestors.
I am amazed that people are so offended by this religious activity that does not impact a non-Mormon believer. If you believe that the Mormons have done something through baptism to actually impact your ancestor’s soul, then perhaps you should become a Mormon -- that implies you believe what they believe. If you don’t believe that the Mormons have done something through baptism that would actually make any difference, why do you care what they are doing? More specifically, why are you offended and calling for response from the Mormon Church? I don’t care if a Satanist comes along and baptizes my ancestors for the devil. I don’t believe that can impact me or my ancestors so I’m not offended by the belief.
In the meantime, Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum, a Catholic, has also been making headlines this week. The big news? He believes in Satan. Quotes from a 2008 speech “proving” Santorum’s belief in the devil have been featured by several major news outlets.
When was the last time you saw a headline proclaiming that someone believes in God? Unless that is completely unexpected -- such as the conversion of a well-known Atheist to Christianity -- it isn’t a headline-maker. It’s generally accepted that many people believe in God. But somehow the corresponding Christian belief in the devil has become unacceptable. We are now going to implicitly label someone as a buffoon for their belief by making that belief a news-worthy headline.
I don’t know if anything gets as much air time in the context of faith matters as the concept of "tolerance." Tolerance parades around under a façade of everyone accepting each other regardless of belief. But in application, what people who talk about tolerance really mean is that we shouldn’t have any belief that offends someone else, and if we dare do, we need to keep it quiet. Where is the tolerance in demanding an apology for a Mormon belief and practice? Where is the tolerance in proclaiming an aspect of Santorum’s faith as a news-making headline, as if it is absurd?
With society’s working definition of tolerance, the best belief is to have no belief at all. That way you have no belief with which to offend someone and no belief to spend time expressing.
My kids are young, but there is no doubt that as they grow they will hear the word “tolerance” thrown at them from all sides. At the same time, I already know how intolerant people will be of their Christian beliefs. Here is what I want them to understand.
Tolerance does not mean we need to approve of or even be open to anyone else’s belief. I don’t agree with the beliefs of other faiths; if you are forcing me to, then you are not being tolerant of my belief.
Tolerance also does not mean that we need to keep quiet about our belief, at the risk of “offending” others.
Tolerance does mean this: “To allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference.”
Demanding apology for belief is interference. Insulting belief with news-making headlines is interference. That said, we can’t stop others from talking about a hypocritical notion of tolerance. We can only choose to be appropriately tolerant ourselves. We need to make sure as parents that our kids have a clear understanding of the difference between what is expected of them by the world -- a silent, uncommitted faith -- and what is expected of them as Christians. In the meantime, we will have to get used to being tolerant of intolerance.
What would you add to this definition of tolerance? Do you agree or disagree that there is a hypocrisy in society’s typical use of the word?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: natkenale
- Name: Natasha
- Location: Orange County, California, United States
- About Me: I'm an evangelical Christian, marketing professional and mom of 3 kids ages 3 and under. I blog about Christian parenting at www.christianmomthoughts.com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 1577 Comments: 0 27 View all posts by natkenale
Comments (27)
Mormon beliefs are what they are. But Santorum's beliefs on Satan come right out the Gospels and are mainstream Christian beliefs.
It's a tragedy that certain members of Santorum's opposition are attempting to create a scandal out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.I completely agree with this post. I think a lot of times when I hear "tolerance" what the person saying it really means is that Christians need to shut up about things they believe to be against God. They have no intention whatsoever of showing any tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them. Yet they demand it from them.
@mtngirlsouth@xanga - How do you feel about Ron Paul leading the charge against Santorum's expression of faith?
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Exactly; I don't believe in Mormon baptism, but why should I care what they do in their temple? I'm so surprised that the Mormon Church apologized for these baptisms. I can't think of another example of an entire religion apologizing for the application of their belief! Can anyone else?
@mtngirlsouth@xanga - Isn't it funny how you never hear of Christians demanding tolerance from others despite the fact that Christians are held to a higher standard of "tolerance" than other beliefs?
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - did you say Ron Paul is leading this opposition to what Rick Santorum said? (are we starting some controversy? Hmm.)
As far as the "baptism for the dead", it does not involve me, so I should not worry. But, perhaps the fear is the same feeling about having a "curse" put on one by a witchdoctor in Africa. The problem is not that they believe in it. But that we fear it would impact us.
I respect that Rick Santorum has been willing to speak out about his faith, and point out that he has some strong reservations about how Barak Obama expresses his Christianity. That he would say he believes there is an Evil One, we call Satan, is just expressing belief in what Jesus proclaimed.
@natkenale - What!!! Did the Mormon church express apology for the "baptism for the dead?" What, was someone baptized for Mr. Ron Paul? (start a rumor, right?)
I do think that we need to practice tolerance of other people believing different from the Norm. Yet, have strong beliefs and declare them, and give the reason why they are believed.
@natkenale - Yup. :)
Santorum, i think, is the logical outcome of conservative Christianity. i sincerely hopes he wins the nomination, because that will make getting Obama elected that much easier.
as an agnostic, i have no issues with Christians ranting and raving about how i'm destined to burn in Hell, as long as they can tolerate me telling them to shove their religion where the sun doesn't shine :) but i do think Christians need to realize that the very message of their religion is not one of tolerance (otherwise you guys wouldn't waste time trying to convert people), and it's not logical to demand something they are not willing to offer others.
@pb49r@xanga - Yes, they apologized! Technically, these Jewish baptisms were not strictly according to protocol (should be of your own ancestors). But this is ridiculous to me - who cares if the Mormons were in or out of their protocol, they shouldn't have to apologize. Read here for an example story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57377969/mormons-apologize-for-baptizing-of-dead-jews/
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - I am content to let you tell me to do whatever you would like with my Christianity - it doesn't offend me. :) That said, how is Christianity an intolerant religion when you use the literal dictionary definition I provided? (Allowing others to exist without interference?) Certainly, people have interfered terribly with others' beliefs under the name of Christianity throughout history (in ways NOT consistent with Christianity). That does not make Christianity intolerant, it makes the people incorrectly applying Christianity intolerant. If you are suggesting that the desire to evangelize to others is intolerant, I would suggest you are using the wrong definition. The belief that one should express faith to others does not mean you are interfering with their lives unless you are forcing them to listen in some inappropriate way. Otherwise, it's just freedom of speech. If a Christian is tying someone down and forcing them to listen to his/her beliefs, that would be interfering. That's not what Christians are called to do, and if that is what you see, that person is not appropriately reflecting the Christian call to evangelism.
@natkenale -
"That said, how is Christianity an intolerant religion when you use the literal dictionary definition I provided? (Allowing others to exist without interference?)"
because Christians are, according to many whom i've spoken with, ordered by their god to convert as many people as possible. i would consider conversion an attempt to interfere. i also would argue that God is the epitome of intolerance, since salvation vs. damnation is based on religious belief.
"The belief that one should express faith to others does not mean you are interfering with their lives unless you are forcing them to listen in some inappropriate way. "
then by all means, express your faith. but do it because you want to participate in a discussion, not because you're trying to save my soul.
another thing is that i see tolerance as more of an issue with hypocrisy. it's the conscious decision to treat others the same way you'd expect to be treated... and, in reverse, expect to be treated the same way you treat others. from an agnostic viewpoint, i don't see anti-Christian rhetoric as any more hateful than a Christian telling me that i'm going to Hell because of what i believe.
@pb49r@xanga - Ron Paul is a radical libertarian. He detests conservatives and has teamed up with Mitt Romney to ruin any and all conservatives in the race.
He never attacks Romney for any reason. And Romney never attacks him. Yet Ron Paul has attacked each conservative front runner, Cain, Bachmann, Newt and now Santorum.
Libertarians have nothing but contempt for religion and faith.
Tis interesting: a couple of the above commentators show some of the biggest intolerance possible. They do not consider how intolerant their rants against faith sharing really is.
what the person saying it really means is that Christians need to shut up about things they believe to be against God.I do think that we need to practice tolerance of other people believing different from the Norm.Jewelry cards
Metal labelsFabric labelsZip PullersBarcode labelsShoes hangersMetal buttonsJewelry tagsSize hangersshoes hooks@natkenale - You want a little cheese with your whine?
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - Santorum is actually mainstream. His speech to Catholic students at Ave Maria University was mainstream Christianity taken right out of the Bible.
Christianity was woven into the fabric of American society from the very beginning. But the secular, leftist world view is all that is taught in school and broadcast by the mass media.
So this year's election is really a choice of what kind of America we really want. Since the sides are so polarized a battle royal is shaping up.
It /is/ ridiculous that it's headline news that this nutbar believes that Satan is attacking America, but not for the reasons you've circled.
What about his ludicrous appeal to the cult of ignorance with his 'snob' comment? What about his contempt for the concept of separation of church and state? What about his brilliant assertion that the recession was caused by high gas prices? His claim that the President doesn't believe in freedom of religion due to a semantic difference in the phrase 'freedom of worship'? His suggestion that Obama's health care plan amounted to a program to abort disabled children? His bizarre obsession with the sex lives of other people? Any other of the numerous red flags?
As far as Mormons and their repeated baptisms of Anne Frank and Holocaust victims: Alright, so if Jewish people don't agree with what the Church of LDS believes, there's no reason to be offended when Mormons offer the gift of salvation to the millions of Jews who died without ever having the chance to become Mormons and are thus in some weird sub-level of purgatory? It's not incredibly offensive because of the intent of the Mormons, it's incredibly offensive to the Jewish people and their ancestors because that the intent implies is that the /Jewish faith/ was wrong, and by the charity of their hearts, Mormons are now laying these lost souls to rest.
The Jewish People are 'intolerant' of it being a public practice of the Mormon Church to treat deceased Jewish victims of the holocaust as souls in need of saving because the Mormon Church is 'intolerant' of the notion that those deceased Jewish victims souls found their own path in accordance with that faith.
The rub with tolerance is that it is and necessarily has to be about accepting that the old way of doing things (burning heretics, shunning non-believers, killing witches, launching crusades) is now unacceptable and has led to more and more bloodier wars and terrorism and bad blood between neighbours and in the kind of society worth striving for, everyone can keep their beliefs, but without the tribalism and division and strife that has been created by things like religion and nationalism.
Tolerance is about accepting that 'the other' exists and will continue to exist. That does mean a lot less forced conversions and Christian hegemony, and since it seems so integral to so many religions that they be 'the one true faith,' it's a hard pill to swallow. But isn't it necessary?
Hear me out here. Yes, it has been important to the strength and growth of major world religions that adherents believe unfailingly in theirs being the 'one true faith,' and perhaps it cheapens the experience in some way to acknowledge the commonalities across faiths, or to admit that there are many ways - but isn't that proven by now? All the religions and all their sects have railed against each other for millennia and no one faith has prevailed.
It is time for a paradigm shift to tolerance. To acknowledging that never will every person share the same experience with faith. Consider the good news spread. To be tolerant means to want to welcome your neighbour despite your differences. Does that mean not ever talking about your faith or being public about it? Not remotely. But it does require acknowledging the other perspectives and treating their beliefs as you would have them treat yours.
Kind of a Golden rule. This humanist has heard that somewhere before... not bad.
I love your definition of tolerance. I hope you and many others live by it!
I am also baffled by why a person would worry about what another person says they are. If someone tells me I am made of oreos, I lick my hand, notice how remarkably un-oreo-it tastes, scratch my head and move on. I do not rage and scream at them for pushing their oreo-based ideology onto me. It is enough, I think, to know what you believe yourself. It's when you don't really know who you are or what you believe (and when you don't have basic necessities) that you are really vulnerable to others taking control of you.
Santorum is a different case. I think other posters are right that people are mocking him not for his Christianity, but because he opposes learning, the seperation of church and state, and homosexuals being considered human beings. Your definition of tolerace was: "To allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference." Santorum and those like him disagree. Anything they do not like or agree with--anything that is not *Christian* enough BY THEIR DEFINITION--must go. America is based upon the sacred trust of many diverse people to live and work towards their dreams together, and it is exactly this freedom to innovate and grow that has made America such a powerful nation. Santorum and his supporters would impose their narrow ideas of right and wrong onto this system, weakening it. If politically active fundamentalist Christians really want to live a theocracy, I hear Iran is taking applicants.
there's hypocrisy in every human endeavor, but it is not evenly distributed. The only aspect of this current Mormon practice that bothers me at all is their presumption, rather like the neighborhood busy-body who seems convinced of his/her "calling" to put the lives of everyone else to rights.
Got faith? That's fine, that's good. But mine may not be the same as yours. Who's right? Who's wrong? How much does it really matter? I'm reminded of an overheard argument between to graphic designers, one of whom held the white on black was the right way to go, while the other chose black on white.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - like i said, i'm not worried :)
Thank you for such an honest and well-written post. I agree completely.
@mtngirlsouth@xanga - My feelings exactly.
"With society’s working definition of tolerance, the best belief is to
have no belief at all. That way you have no belief with which to offend
someone and no belief to spend time expressing. "
Yes, there is a movement (especially in the media) in the US which sees no belief as superior to belief -- but this is unequal/unfair treatment and we Christians shouldn't tolerate it. No belief, nothing to express -- sounds like a less free universe.
Anyway, good post. I would say that praying for the dead is the most proper gift we can give our ancestors.
@natkenale - Are you serious? You never hear of Christians demanding tolerance? It happens all the time. I don't know where you live where you "never hear of Christians demanding tolerance from others", but where I live it's a common occurrence. I grew up in a very Christian community, and they would demand "tolerance" often. It usually was the result of a Christian doing something to irritate a non-Christian, the non-Christian would get annoyed, and then the Christian would be offended and say "You aren't being tolerant of my religion!" and would start crying persecution and oppression. Almost every day of my life as a missionary kid I would hear some missionary complain about their passport country (usually the US) and say how "intolerant" it was of Christians.
And I can't tell you how many times I've had Christians demand I be more "tolerant" of their religion after I (very politely) told them to please not try to convert me.
This happens in public as well. Every Christmas a group of Christians will get their feathers ruffled because people in shops say "Happy Holidays", and they will all cry "You aren't being tolerant of Christianity!" Every time a state votes in favour of gay marriage, a group of Christians will all cry "You aren't being tolerant of Christianity!"
I'm legitimately surprised that you believe Christians never do this.
Tolerance does mean this: “To allow the existence, occurrence,
or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree
with without interference.”
So how about the Mormons let the Jews exist and practice THEIR religion that they don't necessarily like or agree with without interference?
Tolerance isn't a one way street.
My best friend is Jewish and is genuinely offended by this bullshit the Mormons pull. 6 million Jews were KILLED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. It is just insulting to "convert" them after death- it's being incredibly intolerant. It's like the Mormons are saying "you guys were wrong, we're right." After they SUFFERED AND DIED for their RELIGION. It TRIVIALIZES their pain and suffering.
Since intolerance is one of this countries biggest problems (regarding religion, race, ethnicity, language, homosexuality, etc), maybe I could use the example you used in your writing about baptizing in the name of "Satan" to put it another way.
I'm sure if a group of people got together and started Baptizing all of America's Christians in the name of "Satan," including your children, like you stated in your article, I'm POSITIVE people would get pissed off. Just because YOU might not be offended by it because YOU don't think it would hurt you because you "don't believe in it," doesn't mean a great deal of other Christians in the country wouldn't flip. Trust me, I know a few that would take it personally. They would honestly believe they were being infected with evil spirits, even if this baptism was done in satire (they probably wouldn't get the joke though...)
And guess who would come out on top of that one? Definitely not the "Satanist" pranksters that's for sure... Talk about religious freedom in this country...
@posterofagirlxx@xanga - well put. What would you say is the solution to the tolerance/intolerance debacle? I don't think that silence is the solution, so if we are going to allow each other to say things, what do we say and how do we discern the guideline of sayings?