Andrew Fiala – Page 81 – Andrew Fiala, Ph.D.

March 24, 2012September 18, 2014

Religious intolerance: Politics is the problem

Fresno Bee, March 24, 2012

Is there one true religion or any reason to tolerate people from another religion? I discussed this question with Professor Yehuda Gellman the other day in Jerusalem. Gellman is a Jewish philosopher who defends the idea of “religious exclusivism.”

If you believe that your religion possesses the true and only path to salvation, then you are an exclusivist. The opposite of exclusivism is “pluralism.” Pluralists think that the world’s religions are each aiming in the same direction. Pluralists want to include diverse religions rather than exclude them.

One of pluralism’s greatest defenders was John Hick, a theologian who died just last month. Hick thought that the world’s religions had common “spiritual and moral fruits.” He denied that any single religion had an exclusive claim upon truth or salvation. Instead he thought that each religion approached God in way that is colored by local culture and tradition.

Hick quoted the Sufi poet Rumi to make his point: “The lamps are different but the Light is the same; it comes from beyond.” In Hick’s own words, there is a “rainbow” of faiths, with each religion refracting God’s divine light in its own way.

Professor Gellman understands Hick’s pluralist ideal; he knew Hick personally. But Gellman believes that the Jews have an exclusive relation with God as the chosen people. Gellman surprised me, however, by arguing that exclusivists can be tolerant.

He argued that there is no necessary connection between exclusivism and intolerance. An exclusive commitment to a loving and gentle religion can lead to peaceful interfaith relations. If you believe that your religion is the one true religion, but you also believe that your religion commands you to tolerate others, then you should be tolerant.

Gellman embodies this tolerant and loving spirit. He is a kind and thoughtful man, who is involved in interfaith work in Jerusalem.

Within hours of speaking with Professor Gellman, I was reminded that many exclusivists are not so generous or reflective, as I saw the video of Pastor Dennis Terry introducing Rick Santorum in Louisiana. How disappointing that religious intolerance is rearing its ugly head back home, while I am studying it here in Israel.

In case you didn’t see it, Pastor Terry said: “This nation was founded as a Christian nation… there’s only one God and his name is Jesus… Listen to me, if you don’t love America, and you don’t like the way we do things, I have one thing to say: Get Out! We don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammed, we don’t worship Allah, we worship God, we worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”

Terry’s rant shows us the danger of religious exclusivism. If you believe that your God is the only God, then it makes sense to lash out against religious believers who do not love your God or your idealize image of a Christian nation.

The problem here is not Christianity itself. There is a tolerant and loving message in Christianity. Jesus taught: “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned.” The problem is not Christianity but politics. Politicians have used Christian ideas to suppress unpopular minorities since the time of Constantine, the first Christian political leader.

History shows us the danger of mixing exclusivist religious belief with political power, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust. Politics and religion must be kept apart. We should be outraged when a Presidential candidate nods in agreement with a preacher who says to the Buddhist and Muslim citizens of the United States: “Get Out!”

Gellman’s solution to this problem would be to remind us that even Christian exclusivists can find reasons within their tradition to be tolerant. Hick’s solution is to ask us to remember that there is a common source behind the rainbow of faiths.

I’m not convinced that there is anything beyond the rainbow. And I worry that even tolerant religions easily become intolerant, when they become political.

The solution, then, is not religious. It is political. Despite Terry’s rhetoric, the real reason to love America is that it is not a Christian nation. The reason to love America is precisely that you don’t have to “get out” if you don’t like the way other religious people think.

March 10, 2012September 18, 2014

Gentle, rural Jesus

Gentle, rural Jesus had to face harsh urban reality

Fresno Bee, March 10, 2012

The region near the Sea of Galilee is lovely this time of year. Wildflowers bloom on the hills. The Jordan River begins here, flowing gently south toward the desert. The tradition tells us that John baptized people here. Perhaps John understood the joy of taking a dip in a mountain creek.

Jesus found his disciples here among the hill people and fishermen. At some point after he swam with John in the Jordan, Jesus went to a hilltop above the Sea of Galilee, where he gave his Sermon on the Mount. I stood on this rocky knoll the other day and watched the sun sink into the mists. It was gently beautiful: a fitting place for a sermon about love.

Mark Twain came here once. But he wasn’t impressed. Twain thought the little lake of Galilee was “dismal and repellant” in comparison to the magnificence of our own Lake Tahoe. He is right. Nothing compares to Tahoe. But there is something restful and reassuring about this modest lake, a welcome contrast to the tumult of Jerusalem and the severity of the desert below.

The version of Christianity that I prefer seems to come from the idyllic country of the Galilee. This is the Christianity of river rats and fishermen—not the Christianity of priests and politicians. This is the Christianity of friendly food miracles: of turning water into wine and multiplying loaves and fishes. While I doubt that these stories are true, there is value in the spirit of hospitality and generosity they inspire.

Similar values are found in the Sermon on the Mount and its predominantly gentle message. The Galilean Jesus celebrates forgiveness and love, turns the other cheek, and loves his enemies. There are worries about hellfire here, which point in another direction. But in general Jesus suggests that we need to be more tolerant, merciful, and peaceful.

The idea that Jesus was a gentle soul in tune with nature has been described by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson thought that churches and catechisms obscured the truth of Christianity. He suggested that Christianity is best understood, “from the pastures, from a boat in the pond, from amidst the songs of wood-birds.” What Jesus discovered, according to Emerson, is that nature is good and that we each possess the divine within us. Life does look good when you are floating on Tahoe or Galilee, when you take a dip in the Merced or the Jordan.

But Bible doesn’t leave it at that. When Jesus goes to Jerusalem, the rural idealism of the Galilee comes into conflict with the political and religious hierarchies of church and state. Political and religious authorities don’t like river rats and backwoods fishermen. Such outsiders reject the rules and power plays of the city. When these rustics go to town, they get into trouble. Some of them get arrested and even killed.

The God of cities and temples is severe and wrathful, demanding obedience and sacrifice. Jerusalem is a city of kings and priests, with a long history of religious violence. It is not surprising that Jesus is killed in Jerusalem. Wouldn’t Jesus have done better if he had stayed in the Galilee, swimming with John, fishing with Peter, and turning water into wine? If only life were always and everywhere so easy.

But life is not easy everywhere. As we drove to Galilee along the Jordan River from Jericho, we passed through impoverished Palestinian towns, we saw barbed wire and the new security wall. We were hassled by the cops more than once. Above the Galilee lies the contested Golan Heights and beyond that Syria, where children are being murdered by their own government.

The sweet and mild Jesus that Emerson dreamed of could not ignore the suffering of others. It is nice to retreat from the city and enjoy a pleasant mountain holiday. But poverty, injustice, and war make that impossible for most people. The meek remain disinherited and there is no peace. That may be why Jesus had to leave the hills and take his message to the halls of power. Once you understand how easy it is to find peace, love, and joy among the wildflowers, you realize how wrong it is that so many of us are prevented from enjoying these simple blessings.

February 25, 2012September 18, 2014

It’s difficult to see God in holy sites

Fresno Bee, February 25, 2012

Since Biblical times, Jerusalem has been a place of violence and war. Romans, Muslims, and Christians have each ruled the city. In 1967, Israel seized the whole city. But Palestinians and others still contest the legitimacy of Israeli rule.

One focus of continued conflict is the Temple Mount. Tradition holds that on this modest hill in the old city, Adam was created, Noah made sacrifices, Abraham bound Isaac, Jacob climbed a ladder to heaven, and Solomon built the first temple. Some Jews want to rebuild the Temple. And some Christians support the idea, seeing this as a way to hasten the second coming of Christ.

However, there are two mosques on the Temple Mount: the al-Aqsa mosque and the beautiful Dome of the Rock. The Dome on the Rock is built on top of the rock where Abraham supposedly bound Isaac. Muslims believe that Mohammed was transported to the Temple Mount during his night journey—to the al-Aqsa mosque. He then communed with Moses and Jesus, ascending to heaven from the sacred rock.

Last week, posters were hung in Jerusalem calling for Jews to go to the Temple Mount to “Purify the site from the enemies of Israel who stole the land, and build the Third Temple on the ruins of the mosques.” Muslims gathered on the Mount to protect the mosques. The police prevented Jews from entering the site.

This led to cries of outrage by some Jews, who claimed their rights were being violated. Meanwhile, Muslims continued to fear that Jews were planning to violate their holy sites. On Sunday February 19, tourists visiting the Temple Mount were stoned by Palestinians defending the place. Eighteen were arrested.

The violence of this week—minor by historical standards—gives me further reason to be skeptical of religion. I find it difficult to understand how, in a universe that is infinitely vast, a single rock in Jerusalem can be all that important. Why did God choose that rock as the focal point? There is something too convenient in the way that all of these stories point to this rock, to this hill, and to Jerusalem itself. There are surely bigger, more beautiful rocks and more impressive hills in the world. Why would God come here but not to Half Dome?

This got me thinking about Rousseau’s discussion of religion in Emile. Rousseau suggested that to discover the truth of religion, you would have to visit all of the world’s holy places. It is not enough to believe the testimony of others. You need to go and see for yourself whether the stories are true. During Rousseau’s time—he died in 1778—it would have been impossible to undertake such a journey. Rousseau concluded that since we can’t actually do the research, we should learn to tolerate one another.

Rousseau is right: the way forward has to be a path of mutual toleration and an end to religious violence. But I don’t think he fully imagined what happens when you actually visit the world’s religious sites. In these places, you see architectural and artistic wonders that human beings have created. You see pilgrims and street vendors and tour guides. But God is hard to discern.

I’ve been to the Vatican and the other cathedrals of Europe, to the Lama Temple in Beijing, to Shinto shrines in Japan, and now to Jerusalem. I visited the place of Christ’s crucifixion and the Western Wall, where Jews gather to mourn the loss of the Temple. In none of these places have I witnessed anything more divine than what I have seen from the top of Half Dome or in the face of my own children. In none of these places have I witnessed anything that is worth killing for.

Religious people will undoubtedly say that I am just not looking carefully enough. That God is really there—in the churches and temples and rocks. But I worry that when people see God in these places, they also see reasons to kill each other. And I can’t help but think that if God could observe any of this, He would be disappointed to find that we value rocks and buildings more than we value each other.

February 11, 2012September 18, 2014

Step out of comfort zone to learn about others

Fresno Bee, February 11, 2012

I’m writing this column from Tel Aviv, Israel. I’m on sabbatical, working on a book on justice, ethics, and religion. A day after arriving, a friend drove me to Ajami, an Arab suburb south of town. He said that the falafel there was delicious. As the muezzin sang the call to prayer from a mosque near the old port of Jaffa, he explained that middle class Jews from Tel Aviv rarely set foot in such neighborhoods.

As we prowled dark, dusty streets looking for parking, I realized that there were no more signs in English. My mind was spinning with jet lag and cultural dislocation. The locals were oblivious to the foreigner munching falafel. Kids played tag in the traffic. Beautiful women walked by in headscarves and high-heeled shoes. Families walked by with babies in strollers. We ate in peace.

You don’t have to go to the Middle East to feel uncomfortable in certain neighborhoods. There are parts of Fresno where middle class Fresnans never go. We stick to familiar places and operate according to unconscious prejudices. And so we rarely see the problems of those living just across town. But it is important to cross the boundaries we impose upon ourselves every now and then.

Jane Addams described one of her first memories as a trip across town. When she was six, her father took her to some nearby slums. Young Jane asked her father, “why people lived in such horrid little houses so close together.” From that original, naïve insight that some people live rough lives, Addams went on to found Hull-House in Chicago and eventually to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

One of Addams’ important insights, derived with her work with immigrant families in Chicago, is that cosmopolitan cities help people overcome prejudice. She thought that living and working in proximity with diverse others teaches us to get along and reminds us all people deserve equal respect.

I was reminded of the importance of cross cultural interaction even before arriving in Israel. We were stuck for most of a day in Istanbul, due to a snowstorm. Istanbul is the crossroads of the world. The airport was full of stranded travelers: Chinese men in business suits, Muslim women in black burkas, Indian families, and African students.

The counter for rebooking cancelled flights was a mess. There was no line—just a mass of people pushing toward the counter, complaining in various languages. A German who had been stranded for a couple of days, pushed back against the masses, trying to establish order in the line. A flushed American got into a shouting match with a clerk about a misplaced passport. A tall dark man in a three-piece suit elbowed his way to the front. He pounded on the counter and loudly demanded to know who was in charge and what was going on.

Those of us who had been waiting smiled and laughed: no one was in charge and nobody knew what was going on. Despite this, most everyone waited patiently and things eventually worked themselves out. Hope for the future is to be found in the patient forbearance of the vast majority, who just want to go about their business and get on with their lives.

This is true despite vast cultural differences. It is reassuring how easily people from different parts of the world get along. But unless you leave your own neighborhood, you don’t notice this. Segregation, poverty, and prejudice remain problems. This is true at home and abroad.

Future progress will depend on taking these problems seriously, stepping outside our usual comfort zones, and truly seeing the challenges confronting people around the world and across the city. Jane Addams once said, “the highest moralists have taught that without the advance and improvement of the whole, no man can hope for any lasting improvement in his own moral or material individual condition.”

It is difficult to put yourself into the shoes of someone else. It takes effort to venture across town. Courage is needed to confront your own fears and prejudices. But there is no excuse for ignoring the problems of our fellow human beings. And if you take an unfamiliar path to the other side of town, you just might discover that the falafel there really does taste delicious.

January 28, 2012September 18, 2014

Democracy, education diminish our cruelty

Fresno Bee, January 28, 2012

People are becoming less cruel and more humane. This is the thesis of Steven Pinker’s optimistic new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Pinker, a Harvard Psychologist, provides extensive data to support his conclusion, citing a variety of developments from low homicide rates to the demise of dueling and the abolition of slavery and torture.

He attributes some of our improvement to the fact that people are getting smarter. He notes that rising IQ scores during the past century bode well for a more peaceful world, since smarter people are less violent. He notes, for example, that smarter people tend to commit fewer violent crimes. He concludes, “people with more sophisticated reasoning abilities are more cooperative, have larger moral circles, and are less sympathetic to violence.”

There are reasons to be skeptical of any straightforward attempt to link intelligence with virtue. Individuals with low IQ’s can be compassionate and kind; and some psychopaths are exceedingly clever. But Pinker does provide some reasons to think that better education produces gentler people.

One causal mechanism for this sort of progress is literature. Pinker thinks that representations of cruelty can change our attitudes toward violence. And he argues that reading is a useful tool for developing empathy. Reading demands that we imagine our way into another person’s point of view. Widespread literacy—made possible by printing technologies and mandatory schooling—may well be a major cause of moral progress.

One sign of this progress is that fact that warfare has become less cruel. Pinker thinks it is significant that despite the horrors that are still occasionally unleashed in war, we have self-consciously refrained from using our worst and most deadly weapons. He suggests that nuclear warfare has become “too dangerous to contemplate, and leaders are scared straight.”

This conclusion hinges on the intelligence of our leaders. Indeed, Pinker claims that there is a correlation between Presidential IQ and deaths in war. According to Pinker, smarter presidents wage fewer wars and produce fewer wartime casualties.

Such a blithe conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt, since it assumes that presidents wage war in a vacuum without the input of the military or the cooperation of foreign allies. And such a conclusion ignores the fact that our representatives in the Congress have some control over how wars are fought.

This points toward a central question: do wise and virtuous leaders cause moral improvement? The Greek philosopher Plato thought so. Plato rejected democracy as rule of the uneducated and unvirtuous masses. He thought we would do better under the watchful eye of a wise and benevolent ruler who would protect us from our own vicious and ignorant ways.

We are no longer sympathetic to this idea. Instead, we tend to believe that we are smart enough and good enough to govern ourselves. Pinker’s analysis gives us reason to trust this democratic impulse. It is our modern democratic state and its educational system that has made us smarter and better. Most of the moral progress that we’ve made during the past millennia has occurred under democratic government and has been facilitated by the expansion of literacy and education.

People are not born smart or good. We are born with the capacity to learn and with a basic capacity for empathy. But we must learn all of the specifics, including how to control our own violent impulses. Education is essential for understanding the complex moral and political problems that confront us in our globalized world. Intelligence and virtue develop as a result of the sustained effort of parents, teachers, and a supporting social environment. And our moral and intellectual skills develop further, as we exercise our own capacities for self-government.

It is amazing how much moral progress we have made. We no longer allow slavery or torturous punishments. Women have been liberated. And we recognize that our most destructive weapons are immoral. Good for us for figuring this out!

These moral developments were not imposed upon us by philosopher-kings. Rather, they resulted from democratic procedures and were produced by our system of education. The key to future progress is to trust ourselves and to continue to believe that democracy and education can make us both smarter and better.