"New tolerance" is intolerance in disguise

“I am intolerant of intolerance” has become something of a mantra for suppressing unpopular opinions.  Today’s “new tolerance”, as it is called in academic circles, is redefining our understanding of tolerance and shaping our behavior in public spaces, but it is no friend to the exercise of conscience or the freedom of speech.

In the past, we used to “agree to disagree”.  It was a respectful way to end debates before they degenerated into personal and hateful attacks.  We disagreed without rejecting each other.  

We used to define tolerance in the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  We allowed others their opinions and the right to express them.

It is no longer acceptable to agree to disagree

New tolerance requires something different. It demands that we accept either the most popular view or the view of the most vocal group.  If we believe differently, those who hold the dominant view or shout the loudest accuse us of bigotry. They cannot countenance our intolerance; we must be muzzled. This is especially evident when it comes to issues around sexuality and gender.

The no-platform movement that is taking hold of western universities is the poster child of new tolerance.  The movement, which denies speakers a platform, fosters intolerant behavior in its misguided attempt to protect democracy and equality. 

Notable feminist Germaine Greer is the latest fatality of the no-platform movement. Greer was to lecture on “Women and Power: Lessons of the 20^th Century” at Cardiff University in Wales.   Twenty seven hundred students signed a petition that accused her of misogyny and inciting hate and violence against transgender people. In an obvious twist of irony that students seemed to have missed, the no-platform campaign triggered its own form of violence against Greer.  Her opponents attacked her on social media sites, verbally crucifying her. Even though the university rejected the student petition, Greer declined to speak, citing concerns for her safety. 

Greer’s unspeakable crime was to say that she does not think “a post-operative transgendered man is a woman”.   But, others required Greer (and anyone who might hold the same opinion) to think differently.  Payton Quinn, a Huffington Post columnist writing in support of the petition, asserted, “If you believe that trans women are women, as you should because they are, then what Germaine Greer is espousing in her campaign against them is misogyny.”   

Greer, incidentally, was not campaigning against anyone. She has not written about transgender issues for years, nor was her lecture about transgender issues. In her words, “Its not my issue. I don’t even talk about them.”

New tolerance is not limited to the no-platform movement on university campuses. In Canada, some political parties require all candidates to be pro-choice.  A person who questions abortion must want to limit a woman’s right to choose; that person has no place in government. Trinity Western University requires students and staff to sign a covenant agreement with a clause that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The institution must be discriminating against LGBTQ people; it must not be allowed a law school. 

It is no longer enough for a tolerant individual to treat people with the respect and dignity that all individuals – gay, trans or straight – deserve. We must now accept the most popular views and believe what the most vocal group tells us to believe.  To do otherwise, is anathema.

Tolerance takes practice

Tolerance does not come easily or naturally to us.  It requires practice.  From time to time, we need to check our attitudes.  We need to make sure that our concern for one group does not express itself as intolerance for someone else; that we do not become violent, hateful or self-righteous in the name of tolerance. 

Social media has done little to promote tolerance. Social media sites that invite us “to join the conversation” frequently become platforms for intolerance. Outrage, insult and hatred characterize many social media exchanges.  These exchanges do little to foster understanding of difference or to improve society.

It is easier to spew contempt than to allow different voices the latitude to speak. If we are serious about the freedoms of conscience and speech, we cannot bully or exclude others when their opinion goes against the grain.  Rejecting an opinion is not the same thing as rejecting a person or discriminating against a group.

New tolerance is a form of intolerance in disguise.

No easy answers in TWU's bid for a law school

There are no clear winners when the rights of disparate groups compete. Sometimes it is necessary to balance Charter rights against each other. Thoughtful discourse can help sort out the issues. In the Law Society of BC April 11, 2014 debate, we have an informed  discourse.

Equality vs. religious rights

When equality and religious rights butt heads, as in the controversy over the proposed law school at Trinity Western University, Canadians need thoughtful analysis and informed discussion, not knee jerk reactions. The recent decision of the Law Society of BC to approve the proposed Faculty of Law at TWU provides a principled approach to a thorny problem.

Although the proposed law school at the privately funded Christian university has received approval from the BC Ministry of Advanced Education, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and various provincial and territorial law societies, there remains considerable opposition to it. A lawsuit has been filed against the BC government for approving the school, and, a BC lawyer has circulated a petition to members of the BC Bar that could force the Law Society to reconsider its decision.

At issue is a clause in TWU’s “Community Covenant Agreement” that reads,
“Further, according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman…”

A sincerely held religious belief

The Community Covenant Agreement at TWU is a roadmap for personal and community conduct. It is rooted in the faith of the community and based on the institution’s acceptance, as expressed in its Community Covenant Agreement, that the Bible is “the divinely inspired, authoritative guide for personal and community life”.  All faculty, staff and students at TWU agree to abide by the community covenant, and to model themselves after biblical virtues as interpreted according to the university’s evangelical Protestant tradition.

There can be no doubt that the traditional view of marriage and sexuality expressed in the Community Covenant is a sincerely held religious belief, and in keeping with its beliefs, the university requires a level of sexual restraint from all its members, regardless of sexual orientation.  Nevertheless, the implications of the clause discriminate against the enrolment of LGBT persons, and have called into question the university’s ability to properly train individuals, who, as lawyers, must swear an oath to uphold the rights and freedoms of all people.

Because of this clause, the proposed Faculty of Law at TWU raises complex questions about religious freedom, freedom of association and equality. Those who are interested in the specific arguments will find a thought provoking analysis of the issues in the archived webcast of the Law Society of BC debate (http://new.livestream.com/mediaco/lsbc041114), as well as in the BC Civil Liberties Association submission to the Law Society (http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20140302-Submission-Law-Society-re-TWU.pdf).

A process that rigorously examined the issues

As the deliberations of the Law Society of BC make clear, there are no easy answers when the rights of two disparate groups conflict. The Benchers of the Law Society waded through approximately 2000 pages of material in preparation for making a decision. In what I would describe as a rigorous examination of issues and opinions, the Law Society considered legal advice from a number of advisors, Federation reports, the proposal from TWU and close to 300 submissions from the public, which were nearly evenly divided for and against TWU. 

Because rights and freedoms are not absolute, it is sometimes necessary to balance them against each other. In the balancing act, there are no clear winners, as the Law Society debate illustrates; TWU did not come out smelling like a rose even though the Benchers voted in its favour.

Informed debate can help us become more tolerant

Whether we agree or disagree with the decision to approve a faith-based law school at an institution that covenants with its members to uphold a traditional view of sexuality, the process of respectful and informed debate can help us more comprehensively grasp nuanced issues, and lead us to a more compassionate understanding of those whose beliefs, lifestyles, and identities differ from our own.

The controversy over the proposed law school at TWU is an example of the tension that exists in Canadian society between religious rights and equality rights.  This tension is not going to go away. No matter on which side of the fence we find ourselves, we need to work at respecting the rights of others and honoring the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot “live and let live” only when the manner of living falls into line with our worldview. To do so runs the risk of swapping one form of intolerance for another.

A Message from the Magi

Adoration of the Magi

On the twelfth day of Christmas, some men arrived to see, a baby on his mother’s knee. 

While we know very little about these men, they are compelling characters that have captured the Christian imagination. The men appear only in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2. 1-12).  

Matthew tells us that the men, who came from the East, followed a star until they found the Christ child. Along the way, they checked in at King Herod’s palace. After consultation with some experts in Jewish messianic prophecy, they carried on their way. When they found Jesus, they worshiped him, and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Disobeying Herod’s command to return to the palace, they took an alternate route home because they dreamed that Herod intended to kill the child.

The men become legend

From Matthew’s account, the men became the stuff of legend. As early as the 2^nd century, the men were a trio. By the 3^rd century, the trio had become a popular subject of art. By the 5^th century, the magi had become kings, and, in the west, had acquired the names, Balthassar, Melchior, and Gaspar.  In the east, they were Melkon, King of Persia, Gaspar, King of India, and Baldassar, King of Arabia.

Zoroastrian priests?

Over the centuries, the men have been called “kings”, “wise men”, “sages”, and “magi”. The word that Matthew originally used was “magos.”  Magos is a specific term that refers to a Zoroastrian priest.

Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion in the world, possibly dating to about 1800 BCE.  It was the religion of three ancient Iranian empires, including that of King Cyrus, who is mentioned favorably in the Hebrew Scriptures. The prophet Isaiah calls him “God’s anointed one”.  Cyrus liberated the exiled Jews from Babylonian captivity, and rebuilt the Jewish temple. 

Interfaith dialogue

An overlap of religious ideas between Zoroastrianism and the Judeo-Christian tradition strongly suggests that 500 years before the birth of Jesus, Jews and Zoroastrians were engaged in interfaith dialogue. By the time Jesus was born in the 1^st century, Zoroastrian communities were a strong, and influential presence throughout the Middle East.  It is possible that Matthew’s magos were indeed Zoroastrian priests, were familiar with the Jewish messianic scriptures, and were looking for the messiah.

The magi as examples of conversion, perseverance, and trust 

Matthew’s account of the visit of the magi to the child Jesus lends itself to numerous spiritual interpretations.  Justin Martyr, writing in the 2^nd century, saw the magi as examples of conversion, and the renunciation of pagan ways. Origen, another one of the Church Fathers, said the magi were the first individuals to recognize Jesus as the messiah, and were witnesses to Christianity.  Pope Leo the Great, writing in the 5^th century, compared the journey of the magi to a spiritual journey. The star was the light of faith leading the individual to truth. In his eloquent words, “the star attracted their eyes, but the rays of truth also penetrated their hearts.”

Over the years, homilists have added to these interpretations. Some see the magi as examples of perseverance in faith. For others, the magi demonstrate that the servants of God are sometimes found outside of established religious organizations; attending church does not guarantee that a person is serving or honoring God well.

As a compelling example of tolerance

I think that the magi bear today’s world another important message. The magi sought, encountered, and accepted God’s revelation outside of their own religious system, and cultural experience. The unfamiliar did not threaten them; it presented them with an opportunity to discover God in a new way, and to grow spiritually.

Matthew’s magi represent the principles of dialogue, tolerance, and acceptance.  These are principles that improve our personal relationships. These are principles that bring greater harmony to the world, and are especially needed in the Middle East, the region where the magi travelled, and where the Christ, the prince of peace, was born.

My reading of Matthew’s account is not in keeping with the purposes of his infancy narratives.  In his stories of the birth of Jesus, Matthew wants to show that Jesus fulfills the Jewish messianic prophecies, that his birth is universally important, and that he has authority over men.

As part of the living word of God, the magi reach across time, continuing to speak with relevance to the present generation. Their generous spirit of openness and acceptance is a compelling example for all people of goodwill. In a world plagued with various forms of intolerance, the magi are symbols of those noble principles that foster harmonious relationships among individuals and nations.

Credits:

Adoration of the Magi, http://www.shl.lon.ac.uk/exhibitions/reading-the-bible/

The innocence of Islam

I just wasted 14 minutes watching the very poorly produced film, “The Innocence of Muslims”.  Normally, I would post a link to a YouTube video I mention, but not this time. Most teens with an iPhone can make better movies.  Yet, this is the film that has outraged Muslims and sparked protests, first in Arab countries and now in North America and Europe. 

Undeserving of attention but difficult to ignore

If the reaction to this film, created by an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in the United States, had not resulted in deaths and social unrest, I would dismiss the film as ridiculously stupid (which it is).  “The Innocence of Muslims” is simply not worth the trouble it has caused. It deserves no attention.

However, the film’s notoriety makes it difficult to ignore. This film is neither art nor documentary. It is a pathetic attempt at propaganda intended to discredit Islam through the crude portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.  As others have stated, it portrays the prophet as a fraud, a womanizer, and a child molester. To these insulting representations, I would add that the film also portrays the prophet as a buffoon, and his followers as brainless minions.

While I am not surprised at the reaction to this film, I am surprised that this shoddy video has garnered so much attention.  There are likely hundreds of poorly produced propaganda videos posted on YouTube. Most of them remain obscure. Someone, or a group of individuals, disseminated this particular YouTube video for malicious reasons.

Protests have little to do with faith

The majority of protestors in Arab nations cannot have seen the video. Goggle restricted its access in some Arab countries to comply with the laws of those countries. Other countries blocked access to the film. There is a strong sense that Muslim extremists, using social media, orchestrated the protests. 

Maybe the protestors truly believe that they are defending their prophet’s honor. It is more likely, though, that these protests have little to do with Islamic faith, and a whole lot to do with power and ideology.

There is a consensus in the international media that the protests express political and social frustration. Analysts give three main reasons for the protests. There is a struggle within Islam between extremists and moderates. There is frustration with the economy and the slow pace of rebuilding a society following the Arab Spring.  There is also the ever simmering anti-American sentiment and general suspicion of western culture.

Religion is the scapegoat in a complex web of realities

These protests reflect a complex web of realities; religion is the scapegoat. This is nothing new. Historically, those in positions of power and religious authority have misused religion to rationalize intolerance, to legitimize violence, and to further political agendas.  When this happens, religion is more about ideology and power than faith.

Most of the world’s religions are based on an ethic of compassion and non-violence. Islam is no exception.  Violence, ostensibly in the defense of religion, is a poor way for believers to exercise their faithfulness. So is the making of a film that attacks and denigrates another religion.

This small-minded film, "The Innocence of Muslims",  has been thrust into a spotlight on the international stage. It has no business being there. The poorly made film is not responsible for the madness that has ensued anymore than Islam is to blame. Culpability lies elsewhere, in the complexities that shape human societies. 

Join the conversation in a respectful way, please

I would be exaggerating if I called it “hate mail”, but a recent email from a reader was definitely on the nasty side.  The reader was emailing me in response to a column I had written on using inclusive language to speak about God. After quoting from the creation of man in the Book of Genesis, the writer of the email commanded me to give up my opinions. While I thought this was rather imperious of him, and demonstrated a false notion of moral superiority, his email illustrated one of the points of my column: “androcentric language for God perpetuates the stereotype of male superiority”.  

I appreciate reader feedback, even when a reader disagrees with my point of view. I enjoy hearing different opinions; they make me think about my own.  Generally, when readers contact me with an opinion, they are interested in sharing ideas in a respectful manner. They know what I think from reading my column, and I get to know what they think from reading their emails. 

Promoting conversation through mutual respect

"Global Communication"

The respectful exchange of ideas promotes conversation. Through conversation, we moderate our attitudes, and reevaluate our opinions.  Through conversation, we develop a broader understanding of issues, of the world, and of our place in the world.

The media often invites us to “join the conversation”; we can post our thoughts online and comment on the opinions of others. Frequently, in these online “conversations”, people express intolerance for the opinions of others, and comments are sarcastic and insulting. The public discourse that social media seeks to encourage often ends up being little more than people spouting off in an attempt to foist their views on others.

If I learned anything from raising teenagers, the quickest way to shut down communication is to claim moral superiority on a position, and adopt a “my way or the highway” attitude.  A consistent application of the “my way or the highway” style of communication effectively limits one’s own intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth, and does nothing to create meaningful dialogue.

Meaningful conversation requires that we remain open to worldviews, beliefs and opinions that differ from our own.   When we are willing to listen and consider different points of view, conversation becomes a tool that promotes individual growth, and fosters the advancement of human society.  Communication occurs when persons exchange views with civility and tolerance.

Debate or dialogue?

An example of what I consider to be a good conversation took place earlier this year at Oxford University. Oxford hosted what was billed as a debate between Richard Dawkins, often described as the world’s most famous atheist, and Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who described himself as agnostic, chaired the discussion.

The topic for the event was "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin."  Given the disparity between their beliefs, and the strength of their convictions, I expected to see a political style debate between Dawkins and Williams. I expected a contest, and as with all contests, I expected someone to emerge as the winner. Of course, given my own belief in God, I was hoping that the Archbishop would be more the persuasive of the two.

My expectations and hope, however, never materialized.  The event was less of a debate, and more of a conversation. Neither party attempted to prove the other wrong, or to persuade the other with scientific argument or Christian apologetics, respectively. Instead, the men exchanged ideas, and during the exchange they found points of agreement. Notably absent from the demeanor of the participants was any sense of moral superiority. Both appeared to be conscious of their own limitations, and the limitations of human understanding when confronted with the secrets of science, and the mysteries of faith.  The men, and the audience, shared a genuine desire to learn. The mutual respect and humility of the participants engendered an intellectually and spiritually stimulating conversation that came to its conclusion all too quickly. 

"Meeting Room"

The best conversations continue long after the participants have gone home and the room has fallen silent.  Unlike online conversations where comments are “closed” and removed, and unlike emails that can be quickly deleted, we archive ideas from good conversations in our mind. The best conversations are useful tools that aid us in our quest for understanding and meaning; they influence us in ways that sarcasm, intolerance, and just plain nastiness never will.

Photos courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/

"Global Communication" by digitalart

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/agree-terms.php?id=10051922

"Meeting Room" by sixninepixels 

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/agree-terms.php?id=10052036