Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

suspended in her jar

Home
Catholic
It’s Okay to Base Your Friendships on Religious and Political Belief

It’s Okay to Base Your Friendships on Religious and Political Belief

Last updated on: March 6, 2019 at 1:23 am by Rebecca Bratten Weiss

It’s Okay to Base Your Friendships on Religious and Political Belief 2019-03-06T01:23:30-04:00 Rebecca Bratten Weiss

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A quotation from one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters has recently gone the rounds as a popular meme:

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.

While I do love a good meme, this one I could do without. Not only does it take the quotation out of its complex historical context, it presents Jefferson’s sentence uncritically, as a statement of a moral ideal. The implication is that those who distance themselves from others due to disagreement are morally inferior to Jefferson (and anyone sharing the meme).

And behind this implication is another implication: that our beliefs don’t really matter, that when we distance ourselves from others, or dissolve friendships, due to disagreements about politics and religion we are being petty or divisive, or unwilling to live outside an echo chamber.

The problem here is the treatment of all beliefs, and all categories of belief, as though they exist on the same plane.

First of all, yes, freedom of speech and intellectual liberty are important and even necessary – but they do not mean that everyone is equally entitled to a platform, or even to have their opinions treated with equal respect. You are perfectly free to believe the earth is flat; at the same time, universities are perfectly free not to bring you in to debate as though you were a specialist – and I am perfectly free to believe that your belief is idiotic. My “difference of opinion” when it comes to a flat-earther or creationist is not a case of mere taste or preference, as though we were discussing the culinary merits of different types of barbecue. This is a difference of opinion when a heavy weight of evidence exists only on one side, and where only one party has done the work of educating herself about the views of professionals in the field. All human beings may be created equal; all beliefs and opinions are not.

Secondly, it is a mistake to assume that beliefs exist in a vacuum, without reference to or effect on lived reality and actions. This is especially true when it comes to religion and politics. Some belief systems are dangerous. Deadly, even.

But wait, you might say. What about pluralism and diversity? What about tolerance?

To which I answer: pluralism, diversity, and tolerance can only function in tandem with justice and right judgment. They are not the goal of political action, but rather a means to the end of the common good. Which is why yes, it is good to celebrate the diversity of culture and ethnicities, to be tolerant and accepting of traditions different from our own – but not without discretion.

Religious and political beliefs that entail violence or discrimination against others do not exist in the same ethical and epistemic space as other religious and political beliefs.

It’s one thing to disagree on how many deities exist, quite another thing to disagree on whether your deity has commanded you to wage a holy war. In the first case, we can enjoy lively debate with friendship, mutual respect, and learning. In the second case, no, I am not interested in letting “both sides” have their say, and have zero respect for your differing opinion. Similarly, we can pleasantly disagree on whether or not a strong central government is the best recipe for success. I can think you’re wrong, and still go on respecting you. But if your political belief is that the white race is superior to others, or that genocide isn’t such a bad idea, not only do I not respect your differing belief, I will not be your friend, and you are not welcome in my home.

In order to preserve a culture that values intellectual freedom and cultural diversity, we need to be able to take a strong moral stance against systems the beliefs of which violate them. Tolerance endures only by virtue of setting limitations on itself.

And we need to be very wary of those who parrot the rhetoric of “tolerance” and “religious freedom” to justify their own aggressive attacks on the lives and beliefs of others. Religious liberty must not be allowed to be twisted to mean the liberty to outlaw all other religions, and intellectual freedom must not be misapplied to justify giving a platform to a Nazi just as one would to an anti-Nazi.

Political beliefs matter, in a very real and direct way – and political decisions have have life or death consequences.

Political stances are not just aesthetic poses. All political views are not equally deserving of respect, and all politicians and political parties are not the same. What policies are enacted can mean life or death, and not just in a roundabout way. Which politicians are in power can change the course of history, as anyone who has even cursorily glanced at 1930s Germany ought to know. It is alarming to me, as a person who would have been systematically tortured and murdered by the Nazi regime, to hear people say it makes no difference what you believe, or who’s in power.

And yes, I will order my friendships accordingly. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I agree with Aristotle that friendship is not possible between those who do not share certain moral beliefs and values. Charity, maybe, yes – in the Christian ethos. Association, yes, especially if one hopes to be a good influence, to change a mind or heart.

But friendship is something different, and has to do with a unique affection and shared vision. There is no commandment I know of that we must befriend everyone, share our laughter and joy and pain and secrets and domestic spaces with anyone regardless of sympathy or even safety. I am grateful for my many friendships with people from diverse backgrounds, celebrating religions not my own, joining me in an exploration of reality from different perspectives. But this is not the same as trying to befriend those who actively embrace radical evil.

It might be heart-warming for a non-Jew to imagine me befriending an antisemite, but it isn’t heartwarming to me, thinking about how, historically, antisemites betrayed their Jewish neighbors. I know, I know: humans are complex. Nice people do terrible things.

That just makes it all the more tragic and disturbing.

And it’s not just about me.

How could I claim to be friend with someone who has a disability – and at the same time be equally friendly with someone who believes the disabled should be wiped out? How could I pretend friendship with someone who is non-white, while at the same time “tolerating” the views of a white supremacist?

As to that Jefferson quotation, one aspect of its context that we need to keep in mind is that Jefferson kept human beings enslaved as chattel. It’s all very well to imagine him and another white man blithely agreeing to disagree on some matter of delicate policy. But when we consider some of the beliefs he held, and their far-reaching implications for the lives of countless men and women, we are reminded that some beliefs really should not be respected or tolerated.

image credit: picpedia.org/highway-signs/f/friendship.html

Previous Post

February 24, 2019

The Church Leaders Prioritize Their Own Authority Over Service to the People of God

Next Post

March 8, 2019 Are You A Feminist Just Because You Say You Are?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion anti-semitism art Atwood Betrothed church clergy abuse coronavirus culture economics education environmentalism ethics faith family feminism gardening gun violence immigration Judaism literature MaddAddam New Pro Life Movement news pandemic personalism poem politics politics blue Pope Francis racism religion salvation sexuality social justice spirituality Station eleven Stephen King The Stand Trump Uncategorized war World Health Organization

Select a Month March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the correct sequence of the fruit of the Spirit as listed in Galatians?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control Love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, forbearance, faithfulness, self-control, gentleness Love, peace, joy, kindness, forbearance, faithfulness, goodness, self-control, gentleness Joy, love, peace, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, forbearance, gentleness, self-control

Support this
Column