We live in a pluralistic society in which there are a wide variety of religious beliefs and non-beliefs. Peaceful co-existence of religious institutions is essential. As such, respect for religious differences must be a core value across society. Mormon scripture demands it.
We have these words of Alma to his son Helaman:
Alma 38:14
14 Do not say: O God, I thank thee that we are better than our brethren; but rather say: O Lord, forgive my unworthiness, and remember my brethren in mercy--yea, acknowledge your unworthiness before God at all times.
Further, in the Nephite society of Alma there was complete freedom of religion. The record states: "there was no law against a man's belief" (Alma 30:11). In fact, there were freedoms for atheists, as there were "no laws to punish [disbelievers]" (Alma 30:9). Such ideals can easily disintegrate, of course, because a fair portion of the Book of Mormon is about warfare among groups.
Our 11th Article of Faith states:
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Doctrine & Covenants Section 134:4 states:
4 … we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads (in part):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… .
The Founders desired considerable religious freedom without state interference. The Founders were NOT hostile against religion. W. Cleon Skousen in his superior book The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution (1985/2007) indicates: "[The Founders] wanted it clearly understood that the universal, self-evident truths of religion were fundamental to the whole structure of the American system" (p. 675). (I have not found a better book on the U.S. Constitution).
Latter-day Saints consider the U. S. Constitution to be a divinely inspired document (D&C 101:80).
There is plenty of reason, as illustrated above, for Latter-day Saints to be devoted to religious freedom and tolerance. While it may be tempting to derogate other religious views, such temptations should be resisted. Such derogations are generally harmful.
There is much to cherish and enjoy in a pluralistic society where all religions are guaranteed equal respect under the law. This does NOT mean religions are free to disrespect law, but it does mean that all religions should be treated equally under the umbrella of law. It means religions should be left alone unless there is a compelling social interest. No one is left in the rain, and no one is privileged to the exclusion of others.
These are core values worth preserving.
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
3 comments:
I think the distinction between tolerance and respect in this sense is significant. If a religion teaches that their beliefs are correct beyond reproach and conflicting beliefs in other religions are not only wrong, but the result of Satan's misinformation campaign and holding those beliefs leads to eternal damnation, how can they be truly respected? It's like saying you respect someone's belief that 2+2=5. I think tolerance is a more accurate term in this case. Respect implies your acceptance that both your own beliefs and the beliefs of others may or may not be valid.
SFaux,
Thanks for the insight on Skousen. I have not read any of his books yet but may have to take a look at The Making of America. I've heard some nasty comments about Skousen, like he is a conservative "wing nut". Glen Beck's endorsement of one of Skousen's books probably didn't help the "wing nut" image much. I will have to get some of his books and decide for myself.
I agree with your entire post. I have wondered if there is any room for fair and honest critical analysis within tolerance. For example, is there ever a time and place when it is appropriate to declare that Vishnu is just a dumb idol? Is there ever an appropriate time and place to declare that Budha is just a statue?
When I gave my presentation at the Mormons Scholars in the humanities conference I heard a lot of positive talk about Vishnu and Brhama, yet when I got up and declared that science should be more accepting of acknowledging God it threw all the Vishnu and Brahma advocates into a tissy. They got really uncomfortable during Q&A when I told them that I would not be comfortable with a scientist acknowledging Vishnu because, "As I put it, Vishnu is not the one true god of heaven and earth." But I would be comfortable with a person of any Christian faith, Jew, or Muslim scientist acknowledging God because I think we are all worshipping the same Father in Heaven, notwithstanding obvious differences.
Dave C:
I highly recommend the Skousen book on the Constitution. It is extremely well done. I am not a huge fan of some of his other works.
You and I would agree, I believe, that it is worrisome when neuroscientists, like Sam Harris, argue that one should build a coherent morality based upon science alone.
I am VERY uncomfortable with "the new atheists" who are aggressively trying to undermine religion as a whole.
I believe, as do you, that science is a superior tool for discovery and decision making, but it has its limits. Science does not comprehensively cover all aspects of academia, let alone life.
I would not mind if Mormon scientists could organize a conference and discuss the question: "What do we learn about God from science?" But, I would be very uncomfortable if such a question became a regular theme in generic science.
Further, I am uncomfortable with the notion that Mormonism (or any other religion) should steer a scientist into certain kinds of scientific perspectives. I fear that many religionists would tell me that I cannot be a behaviorist or an evolutionist. In fact, I am both. In Chalmer's taxonomy, I am a Type-A materialist (except maybe on Sundays). Those perspectives lend to me the greatest clarity on nature.
Of course, I am fine if other Mormon scientists take opposing positions.
I do believe in "spirit," but scripture tells us very little or nothing about how spirit interacts with body. Until we get further revelation or the beginnings of a science on the matter, I am NOT willing to make speculations.
So, ultimately I am a Mormon skeptic. I am not skeptical of Mormonism. I am merely a Mormon who is a skeptic.
I hope any of this makes sense to you, and that somewhere I addressed some of your questions.
Best wishes, and thanks for your response.
Post a Comment