On Inter-Religious Dialogue I: Religious Liberty and Tolerance

Last updated on: June 29, 2007 at 8:42 am by Henry Karlson

On Inter-Religious Dialogue I: Religious Liberty and Tolerance 2007-06-29T08:42:00-05:00 Henry Karlson

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.

Ideologues tend to use simplistic-sounding notions as a means to control their audience. For example, they can say something like, “error has no rights.” What would one mean by this? Obviously, it would mean “what you say is wrong, and you have no right to discuss it.” Of course, they obscure many facts, such as the difference between a person who has rights and ideas which do not; error has no rights because error is not a person. While an erroneous idea has no rights, a person has the right to be in error. In saying this, it must be understood what this means – we are discussing the right for someone to hold to whatever ideas they want, not to act immorally. There needs to be limitations as to how one can act, but this is not necessarily related to their beliefs; one who believes the truth can act inappropriately, and one who believes in an error can act correctly. But the right to a belief, and even the right to discuss one’s beliefs, is a right given to persons, and has nothing to do with whether what they believe is true or false.

It seems that ideologues tend to hold simplistic views about the truth, and they really do not understand what truth is, nor that we tend to obtain it through dialogue with others. Anyone who seeks for truth has a right and even a need to discuss with others what they believe; in that dialogue, they can then encounter what others know or understand. Both sides are challenged from this, and both sides are able to learn something new from it. They can see things in a new perspective, and indeed, there will be an opportunity for all sides in a dialogue to help each other overcome each other’s errors in this fashion. Correction, when it happens, is not to be seen as a one-sided benefit in dialogue; it is likely that all sides in a discussion, listening to each other and showing respect to each other, will learn and develop as a result of this dialogue. Truth is established in communion, not by individuals seeking to prove themselves better than everyone else “Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.” Dignitatis Humanae. Vatican translation (Vatican: 1965), 3.

To silence people who hold onto some error is to put a stranglehold on truth, because it would silence everyone. How would one go about determining truth or falsehood, even if one believed that one in error has no right to speak? Truth transcends human abilities to comprehend it; even those who believe they possess the truth, when examined closely, will be found to be holding onto various errors. Ideologues, of whatever persuasion, have a difficulty in accepting this limitation. They will say how “simple” truth is. If others do not see truth the same way, it’s because something is wrong with them. They might not be smart enough to see the truth, or they are just too obstinate to change their minds. Therefore, they have nothing substantial to say, and should therefore not be given the opportunity to say anything. Ideologues believe that silencing their opposition is the best way to keep truth alive.

Christians have had to deal with such ideologues since the beginning of Christian history. Romans believed they had the truth. Great intellectuals such as Pliny, Celsus or Porphyry had no qualms in silencing Christians. They disturbed public order and contradicted the well-established “truths” of the Roman Empire. Pliny, for example, tried to treat people accused of being Christian with a favor: he would ask them if they were a Christian; if they denied it, he let them off. If they did not, he gave them a couple more chances to deny being a Christian, warning them what will happen to them if they were indeed a Christian. If they persisted, he thought punishment was justified because they stubbornly held onto error (cf. Pliny, Letters10.96).

It was in such a milieu that the early Christian apologists such as St Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, St Clement of Alexandria, and Origen wrote. They had to contend not only for the truth of their teaching, but for their freedom to believe what was against the norm, and what seemed to the Romans to be a silly, sectarian faith criticizing the truths of Rome. They said that one must judge a person by their deeds, not their beliefs. Even if their words might be challenging to established norms, that should not be enough to convict; only if they have done something truly evil should they be punished. Thus, we see St Justin suggesting that one who is to be charged for a crime should only be charged for real wickedness, and not for the beliefs they hold. “Wherefore we demand that the deeds of all those who are accused to you be judged, in order that each one who is convicted may be punished as an evil-doer, and not as a Christian; and if it is clear that any one is blameless, that he may be acquitted, since by the mere fact of his being a Christian he does no wrong” St Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin. in ANF:1. ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), ch. 7.

Athenagoras continues with this line of thought in his A Plea for the Christians to Marcus Aurelius. After recounting a diversity of beliefs and practices allowed in Rome (and no one can say they were all true), he points out that Christians have been especially ridiculed and punished for their beliefs. His point is clear. If an error in belief is what causes one to be convicted, why then are only Christians being punished? He suggests that there was a considerable amount of hearsay used against Christians, charging them of doing various evil deeds (is this not the way many practitioners of many “weird-looking” religions are treated today?); he counters this by explaining Christian morality and showing it to be superior to the average Roman. If a Christian committed a real crime, Athenagoras believed that they should be tried and convicted: for that crime, not for being Christian. “If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if the accusation relates merely to our name—and it is undeniable, that up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian been convicted of crime—it will devolve on you, illustrious and benevolent and most learned sovereigns, to remove by law this despiteful treatment, so that, as throughout the world both individuals and cities partake of your beneficence, we also may feel grateful to you, exulting that we are no longer the victims of false accusation” Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians. in ANF:2. ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), ch. 2.

The earliest Christians had to work to establish toleration in Rome, and indeed, under St Constantine the Great, they got it. Christians had not worked merely for the toleration of Christianity alone; they wanted toleration in general. This is why St Constantine did not, in his conversion, silence non-Christians; he was guided by Ossius, Lactantius, Eusebius, and other Christian advisers to proclaim religious liberty in Rome. This did not mean the state needs to fund all religious groups (as the Donatists were to find out), nor did it mean a religion needs to tolerate all possible views as being acceptable within its own boundaries (so Christianity itself did not have to tolerate those who stand against the Apostolic Tradition as Arius was to find out), but it did mean that the state itself should be tolerant of a diversity of religious beliefs, and people should be tried, not for their religious beliefs, but only according to the deeds they have done.

We know that such ideologues are not to be found in the past alone. We have seen it in modern times, and it does not have to be related to religious beliefs, as McCarthyism showed us. Often, however, ideologues mix political power with religious overtones, such as the kind we see coming out of the Middle East. Many in power over there hold onto a specific version of Islam as the truth, and they declare, like all ideologues, that only their tradition has any rights. Of course, it must be understood that Islam, like Christianity, is filled with a variety of beliefs and positions, and political ideologues do not actually represent the majority position in Islam (currently, historically, theologically, or philosophically). Political ideologues in Middle Eastern countries must not be confused by non-Muslims as representatives of Islam as a whole (even if many Christian ideologues want to suggest this is the case). They are only representatives of their own personal faith; indeed, it is a faith which is often formed in the rejection of other forms of Islam more than anything else. Pope Benedict wants religious freedom, as is proper, in Middle Eastern countries and believes this would help serve as a foundation for peaceful relations between Christians and Muslims. However, many Christians think this works one way. We should be given freedom over there because “we have the truth” but Muslims should not be given such freedom in Christian lands. They want religious freedom for Christians alone, no one else; what, truly, differs them from their Muslim counter-parts?

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa saw how divisive religion can be, and how easily it is used to justify unseemly acts. He did not, as a result, reject religion. While many used religion to generate such violence in the world, it was only through abusing religious principles that such violence could be justified. For example, he pointed out that, “All who either inflict or suffer this persecution are motivated only from their belief that such action or passion is expedient for salvation and is pleasing to their Creator” Nicholas of Cusa, De Pace Fidei. trans. Boris Jakim (Minneapolis: Arthur J Banning Press, 1994), ch. 3. The road to hell is paved with good intensions. While it is good to desire the salvation of others, it is never good to depersonalize those same people you want to save to justify your actions to them. In his important work, Nicholas said that there was need for inter-religious dialogue and gave an outline as to how he thought this dialogue could go. He believed dialogue should be used to overcome religious hostility and work for peace. Throughout the work, he constantly shows his Christian faith: he believed that Christianity contained the fullness of truth, and in dialogue this would be discovered by others. Yet, there are many questions as to what he sees will happen in that dialogue. For example, he believed that other religious traditions were, at their heart, reflections of the Christian truth, and so were not extraordinarily different from the Christian faith in their essence. While he hoped dialogue would develop a one world faith based upon Christianity, he also saw that this faith would still hold a great diversity of religious rites based upon the traditional values and practices of the different religious faiths. Because of this, many question what he means, was he an inclusivist or a pluralist? Such questions miss the point and fundamental importance of the work: we are called to engage in respectful dialogue with people of other religious traditions, and in that dialogue peace can be had. That dialogue requires respect and toleration of the other because it is only through that respect we can get someone to dialogue with us.

Indeed, we can see a history of such dialogue and with it respect (and disagreement) with non-Christians throughout Christian history. St Justin Martyr called Socrates a Christian before Christ, because he “followed the Logos.” St Thomas Aquinas read Arab philosophers; while he disagreed with their religious beliefs, he nonetheless held them in high respect to dialogue and debate with them – and indeed, would often quote Arab philosophers when they favored one of his beliefs. Tolerance does not mean accepting error, or not responding to what one perceives to be an error, but dialoguing with the person who holds such an error, to show them respect as a human person even as you would want them to show respect to you (especially because they would view you as being in error, as well). “The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself” Dignitatis Humanae, 2. Religious freedom is a right which must be acknowledged: when it is suppressed, we find that violence and hostility occurs. Here it would not be religion but its unjust suppression that is the cause of violence, because it goes against the fundamental dignity of the human person that a human will, in such a situation, fight back, acting as if in self defense.

Tolerance is not about the rejection of truth, but by providing the means by which people can discover it in their lives. It is only in mutual respect that dialogue can really take place. And this dialogue is vital for the future of humanity because it will help counter the religious violence and bigotry we see coming from people in all religious traditions. “We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity. The defence of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization” Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Journey to Cologne on the Occasion of the XX World Youth Day (Vatican: 2005).

Dialogue

Henry Karlson

Human Rights

Previous Post

June 29, 2007

Immigration Video

Next Post

June 29, 2007 No accent is better than another

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 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 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 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 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the first king of Judah after Israel split?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Asa Ahab Jeroboam Rehoboam