Tolerance, and More than Tolerance

A Sunday school class recently asked me to teach a lesson on Islam.  The request was the result of one the class members' forwarding an anti-Muslim email.  He was not trying to support the views in the email.  He was honestly asking for discussion.  And so, I responded.  The email had many common arguments about Islam being violent and attempting to take over the culture of countries in which Muslims live.  What was new in this email, to me at least, was the argument that a Muslim cannot be a citizen of the United States because a Muslim cannot live under the US Constitution (which the email claims is a Christian document) and because a Muslim cannot pledge the flag because a Muslim believes in a different god and cannot say "One nation under God."

My response said a lot about whether and in what sense the US Constitution is a Christian document, and if it is, what it might mean to consider the freedom of conscience it guarantees, a freedom that is certainly central to any meaningful understanding of the Christian faith?  Perhaps those reflections might make for another blog.

Responding to that email caused me to reflect on something else, though, something I had considered but not deeply enough.  The email dealt extensively with violence and terrorism. But what of Muslim victims of terrorism inspired by radical Islamics.  Were Muslims not also killed in the attacks of 9-11? Did their families not mourn as deeply as any other victims' families?  Did they grieve their losses any less than Christians, Jews, or people of no faith?  They most certainly did.  The terrible thing for these families is that they were doubly victimized.  Not only did they experience loss, but their faith was also blamed for the very thing that killed their loved ones.  Rather than being comforted by our culture, they were demonized.

I also have considered what it must mean to be a Muslim soldier fighting in the US Armed forces.  Many Muslims came to America in search of the promise of religious freedom, and loved this country because they found the freedom they sought.  Their children went to war in defense of these freedoms.  Many have given their lives because they love America.  Many are now returning from war.  Their fate reminds me of soldiers who returned from the Vietnam War expecting the nation to gratefully celebrate their sacrifice, only to be spit upon and be called baby killers.  Our nation has largely learned the lessons of this mistake, and even those who have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been careful to say that they appreciate and support the troops' sacrifice.  But Muslims who serve must feel that much of our nation has returned suspicion and intolerance for their contribution.

I am a Christian.  I do not believe much of what Islam teaches.  But I have taken the time to understand Islam and to understand where I agree with Muslims and where I disagree.  I've read the Koran, and I've read about Muslim history and culture.  I've been to two countries (Turkey and Israel) with significant Muslim populations.  I've done what I can to get to know Muslim people and talk openly with them about their faith and practice.

To me, this is what it means to be a person who embraces the truth.  I cannot talk about Islam unless I have honestly engaged with both the faith and gotten to know people who practice it.  The Ten Commandments tells us not to bear false witness.  If we have not taken the time to learn what Muslims believe and how diverse and variegated their community is, then I have no business making and acting on uniformed judgments.  Jesus taught that we should do unto others as we would have done to us.  Don't we expect that people outside our faith who disagree with us will disagree on the basis of who we are, and not on the basis of the very worst that has been said and done by the very worst people who have claimed the name of Christ?

Muslim intolerance has recently been in the news because TLC's reality show "American Muslim" was attacked by the Florida Family Association and caused Lowe's to pull its advertising.  Many people reacted against this intolerance and the controversy actually has been a boon to the show.

The first people to defend the show should have been Christians.  The show simply shows the lives of Muslims, helps people to get to know real Muslims.  It's not propaganda.  In no way does it defend radical Islam or terrorism or Shari'ah.  If we can't face reality, if we can't make our determination about people and their views on the basis of those people being real people who we have gotten to know in any sense, then what's left for us?  How can we ever move forward and how can we ever live on the same planet peacefully?

Tolerance can mean nothing more than allowing another person to inhabit the same world without bothering them as long as they don't bother you.  Is this what Jesus taught us?  In no way should Christian people compromise their Christian beliefs in order to be politically correct in regards to Islam.  But if we are to be followers of Jesus, who left heaven to engage us and taught us to be people of truth who love our enemies, then we must engage Muslims on the basis of who they really are.  What would it hurt to get to know a Muslim, to ask them about their faith, to find out if there are any points of connection, to find out if they are people like us who care about many of the same things we care about?

On the Death of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens was a remarkable man in many respects.  He had a long career as a public intellectual in a time when popular culture became increasingly banal.  He took unpopular positions on many issues, and stuck to his guns--he was an unpopular outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War and perhaps more unpopular proponent of the Iraq War.

The blogosphere is full of conversation about his life and impact.  He was an unapologetic hedonist and predicted decades ago that his heavy drinking and smoking would eventually do him in.

For Christians, he was best known as an adversary to faith.  Hitchens was one of several writers (along with Richard Dawkins and and Sam Harris) who revived intellectual arguments to atheism.  His God is Not Great was on the bestseller list when I was in seminary, and everyone had to deal with his and his colleagues' ideas.

None of these writers said anything particularly new.  Their arguments against the existence of God had long ago been formulated by the opponents of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and generations before them.

What was new was the vitriol against religion, and Christianity in particular.  Hitchens embodied and personified this new anger and contempt for religion (his attacks were equally aggressive toward Islam).

My interest in Hitchens and others was not so much that they were making old arguments against faith.  I have been more fascinated by the audience that they gained.  How, after so many years of disinterest in rational atheism, had three writers landed permanently on the New York Times bestseller list?

Before Hitchens and comrades, religion had begun to be seen as a matter of personal preference.  If people want to be religious, fine.  If not, that's their business.  What does it have to do with me?  If a religion makes a person feel good, that's all and good for them.  If Wicca works for one person and Presbyterianism works for another, who cares?  Religion makes a claim to ultimate reality.  But popular culture equated it with an exercise regimen or favorite ice cream flavor.

The popularity of the New Atheists (as they were sometimes called) came during a time of war and extreme cultural divide over faith.  It was a time when President Bush was publicly using the religious language to advocate war against religiously sponsored terrorism (Hitchens coined the term "Islamofacism").  It was a time when the world seemed on the verge of erupting into religiously inspired chaos.  Many people of moderate faith or no particular faith suddenly saw religion as more than a personal diversion.  Religion appeared to be a threat to human existence.

My father once taught me that we should love our enemies because they are the only people who will tell us the truth about ourselves.  Perhaps Christopher Hitchens offers Christians an opportunity for self reflection.  If we are to be the salt of the earth, might we be doing something wrong if our enemies see us as that which corrupts and threatens the life of the world?  If Jesus said that the world should see our good deeds and glorify God in heaven, what does it mean when Christian engagement in the public sphere causes the culture to listen to those who say not only that God does not exist, but that belief in God is destructive to human collective life?  I don't have the answers, but I think we should bring these questions to God.  I'm grateful to Hitchens for causing me to reflect on them.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies.  Hitchens made an enemy of God, but we can be sure that God found him precious.  His great intellect and his passionate search for truth are evidence of his being made in the image of God.

God will judge Christopher Hitchens.  That's what it means that God is God and we are not.  As much as we were made uncomfortable by Hitchens's rebuke, we may take comfort that the God in whose hands Hitchens now lies loves him still.