Earlier today I stumbled onto a One News Now article by R Albert Mohler, Jr with the title: “Should Christians ‘respect’ other religions? [1]”
Unusually, I read the whole thing instead of reading the first couple of paragraphs, saying something uncomplimentary and then selecting something light-hearted from my bookmarks menu. Equally unusual for me in response to a ONN article, I found myself agreeing with the author. A bit. First, on the Pope’s visit to Jordan, he states:
… we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts.
I agree entirely. I’ve long been opposed to the Vatican’s pseudonational status, its seat at the UN, the undeserved deference shown to its capos wherever they go and whatever they say. The fact that this institution has been around for centuries, used to hold Europe’s kings in its gnarled talons and materially enriched itself through various nefarious means while claiming absolute moral authority and a hotline to God should give it no automatic authority of any kind in the current century. Longevity, especially in combination with massive wealth (much of it ill-gotten) does not and should not entitle anything or anyone to undeserved, unearned power & influence.
Leaving that aside, the thrust of Mohler’s column was to question this statement of Ratzinger’s:
My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.
Mohler points out that it’s the Papacy’s official position from Vatican II that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” Fair enough, include all ‘people of the Book’, to borrow the Islamic term – if there’s anything the Papacy likes it’s bums on seats, however they’re acquired. However, Mohler seems to think no such respect should be accorded to Islam. As an Evangelist he believes he and his brethren should be out, well, evangelising. Spreading the word of Jesus. There is but one way to be saved and that is, as you might guess, through acceptance of Jesus Christ as mankind’s saviour. No surprise there, we’re all familiar with that basic tenet of Christianity. He states:
… we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and His Gospel.
In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.
Again, no surprises. What caught my attention was the following paragraph:
Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.
A familiar-sounding principle, isn’t it? Mohler respects and could probably empathise with the sincerity of Muslims, if not their specific beliefs. He respects their positive contributions to humanity, science, art & knowledge. Excellent – Islamic contributions to such things are legion. What Mohler cannot respect, however, is a belief system that clashes with or contradicts his own. He cannot respect a belief system with which he does not agree. He will not respect a belief system in which he sees no truth. He looks at Islam and says “No. This is not the way things are or the way they should be. This is not Truth and this does not deserve my respect.”
To Mr Mohler, it must be said that I wholeheartedly endorse this principle. In principle. It is this principle that many people like myself, who are not religious, also subscribe to (though less selectively). Atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalists and secularists (who, it must be pointed out, are not necessarily non-religious) are generally quite happy to respect people, their contributions, their right to believe as they choose and their freedom to express their beliefs (applying usual caveats regarding illegal, immoral or unconstitutional behaviour of course). We, like Mr Mohler, reserve the right to not respect beliefs which we find disagreeable or mistaken or unsupported and, especially, any negative actions which are based on them. There are many beliefs which I find undeserving of any respect: that men should have lordship over women; that homosexuals should not be accorded full legal rights; that everyone is born into sin and needs ‘saving’; that anyone not subscribing to a particular minority sect’s view of a particular religion will be condemned to a place of infinite torture for eternity; that certain religious texts are infallible and are always right despite what contradictory evidence is unearthed; that education about sexual facts leads straight to promiscuity; that this planet is only millennia old; that ‘respect’ for a belief equates, in many minds, to ‘not ever publicly expressing any doubts with or disagreements with it, as respecting a belief means you say nothing unless you share that belief.’
There are also inexhaustible examples of actions based on religious beliefs which I find equally unworthy of respect: denial of equality to women or homosexuals; denial of the right of a woman to reproduce at a time of her choosing; denial of effective sexual education to young people; denial of established scientific truths; dishonest campaigns to insert certain religious doctrines into science classes; denial of medical or psychological care to people in need in favour of prayer or ritual; the indoctrination of children. I could go on, but my time on this planet is finite.
The point is that just like Mr Mohler, I’m happy to respect peoples’ rights to believe what they want, even if I find the beliefs themselves offensive or mistaken and certain actions based on them destructive or oppressive or morally repugnant. I can’t help wondering if he would understand or appreciate that this principle, applied non-specifically, works equally against his own chosen beliefs. I’m wondering if he would respect another person’s right to apply the same disrespect to his belief system as he chooses to apply to Islam (and, presumably, anything other than Evangelical Christianity). I’m wondering if religious people in general would understand that this principle is applied across-the-board by non-religious people to all religions. I wonder this because most religious people assume that it’s their specific religion we don’t have any respect for. Well, no. It’s all of them. I have as much respect for the claims of Christianity as I do for those of Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Scientology, Norse, Greek & Roman paganism and everything else before & since. But for your right to believe in Thor or Xenu and your right to pray to them five times a day and eat only fish on Friday, I have the utmost respect.
To close, I’m going to exercise some artificial selection & non-random mutation on Mr Mohler’s most pertinent paragraph:
Thus, rationalists may respect the sincerity with which the religious hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect religious people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of religious scholarship and the wonders of religious art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the evidence for the workings of the universe, insists that gods instantly created us and wish to control us through bribery, coercion or fear, and takes billions of minds captive.
There. Fixed.
Print this post [2]
[3]