We talked today about how literary treatment of religious doctrine would lead to the elimination of intolerant activities from extremist groups. With that being said, I think that step, if possible, is very far away. Here are two key concepts that I do think can be/are being popularized in contemporary religious communities, and can produce a step towards a decrease in religious intolerance.
Religious Pluralism: While it is a fact of reality, that numerous religions exist, the belief that they all have a place in the world does not. One thing we discussed, in Islam especially, was that Muhammad was the prophet that was chosen to bring the Arabic peoples their own religious text. They did not even think of attempting to convert Christians or Jews, as they already had their own text. Embracing religious pluralism requires theologians to give up the power struggle of the big monotheistic religions that was fostered especially during colonial imperialism in Europe.
As the Bhagavad-Gita states, "All paths, Arjuna, lead to me." Perhaps accepting that all religions lead to God can help followers of all religions coexist together, and eliminate the need for evangelical mission work or conflict fueled by dogmatic mandates.
A Medium of Reason: Dogmatism, in Christianity especially, is held in fairly high esteem. Creating a medium of public reason, as the only way in which to project political views upon others, would be another step towards tolerance. While many different people have many different opinions on religious dogma, I think relagating dogmatic views to one's private moral compass would do a lot do decrease the polarizing nature of religious dogma, in American politics especially.
Your medium for reason section is very agreeable if the intended consequence is people treat their moral value as personal and take great care in how they use their public discretion so as to not impose themselves on to others. What if one's private moral compass is so dogmatic that it cannot change? How do we deal with that when its practice causes harm to others? How do conform someone to practice morals with lesser negative consequences when their private morals are dogmatic?
ReplyDeleteOne strategy is to show the person that moral commitments are, by definition, something requiring regular reconsideration and reasoning -- so that holding one's moral views dogmatically (as I did in my youth: a friend once said I wore my moral values on my sleeve!) is itself contrary to the spirit of morality!
Delete