old letter to editor - never sent

2002Jun19

Intolerance

For the second time in about a year the charge of intolerance as been hurled in the Atlanta area relative to an issue of religions.

Last year a Protestant minister denied a Jewish rabbi use of his pulpit for a graduation ceremony. This year one Baptist leader, supported by another Baptist leader, made a strong public statement about Muslims. What is going on?

The details the last time were that a Protestant church volunteered to hold private religious graduation service. The students chose the rabbi to be the speaker. The minister objected. The media exploded with charges of intolerance.

Let us look closer. In that Protestant church the Word of God is the dominant religious symbol. The pulpit is the place from where the Word is proclaimed. It is therefore a sacred place.

If the First Amendment to the US Constitution has any meaning, it is to protect sacred places, symbols and objects for the interference of others. Catholics hold the communion bread to be sacred. Jews hold the Torah scroll sacred, both and the Protestants give great reverence to the Word of God. Is it wrong not to share sacred symbols but restrict their use to believers in their sacredness? It would seem every patriotic American who holds the Constitution dear would support the setting aside of the sacred places, symbols and objects.

Tolerance, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary tells us, is sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own, the act of allowing something. It doesn't say you have to like conflicting belief's, or say that you like them, just indulge them.

This year the charge of intolerance is leveled on the basis of a statement made by one religious leader to other religious leaders with the same belief system about a strikingly different belief system. Both sides of the First Amendment address this issue. As one who does not share that belief system or does so only in part (I am a Christian but not a Protestant) I find the First Amendment calling me to indulge those beliefs. And that is a lesson not evident apparently to either some of the media or some Americans, as evidenced by the AJC editorial of 2002June18 and accompanying letters.

As Rev Msgr Harry J Byrne (retired pastor and former chancellor of the Archdiocese of New York) notes in America 2002Jun17-24 "September 11: A Neighborhood Reflects", neither do most Muslims. (I commend the article to the AJC for reprint.)

The basis for our society is built into the very First of the Bill of Rights -- the conversations between the citizens, both individual and collective. It is often neither civil nor pretty. When it occurs, there may be hard feelings, but there is understanding. In the conversations, persons of differing views may and do challenge the views of others. That it should occur should surprise no American and is a lesson to be learned by old and young, citizen and visitor alike. As mentioned above it is the sacred places, symbols and objects our Constitution protects, not feelings.

At the moment the conversation with respect to 2001Sep11 has been less than balanced, less than complete. It is not for a lack of trying in some quarters.

Therefore, quoting Fr Byrne, "Our Muslim neighbors are challenged to dispel the perception that they endorse the polity of Muslim nations that regards Jews and Christians as infidels, denies them religious freedom and in law treats conversion as a capital crime.

...