Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

WHAT DOES RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE MEAN?

No society can survive long where religious intolerance is permitted to thrive. Without it, it will be impossible for a nation such as ours to build a basis for a common interest, common ideals and common destiny. Simply, without religious tolerance, Indonesia will be ceased as a nation.

What does religious tolerance mean? Let’s explain it by what it means and what it does not mean. Religious tolerance means that one acknowledges and respects the right and the freedom of others to embrace and practice their religious beliefs, even though one disagrees with their beliefs and practices. The key words of religious tolerance are: disagree yet respect. 

David Little, Dermot Professor of the Practice of Religion, Ethnicity and International Conflict at Harvard Divinity School provides an excellent definition of religious tolerance.  It is “a response to a set of beliefs that are originally thought to be objectionable, with disapproval but without using force or coercion [to change them].” According to David Little, tolerance not only does not use coercion or force against an opponent, but a tolerant person respects the other’s viewpoint. “It is natural for us to punish people we do not agree with. To repress that impulse is tolerant.”[i]

The eleventh Webster college dictionary gives the definition of tolerance as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own”. Again, the emphasis is on sympathy and differences.

 Religious tolerance is the absolute foundation for a mutual cooperation among religions.  The purpose of religious tolerance is to avoid antagonism and conflict, and to promote peaceful and respectful coexistence with all other religions. The pluralism of religions “is acknowledged not only as a historical fact but also as a religious fact willed exactly by God Himself so that people from different faiths could compete with one another in doing good.”[ii] So intolerance towards others of different religious beliefs is contrary to the real spirit of religion.

Religious tolerance, however, does not mean accepting a notion that all religious beliefs are essentially the same and they all can be reduced into a single religion. Proclaiming so is only ignoring the reality of the differences among them. Moreover, proposing a ‘common idea of God’ to be shared by all religions is an over-simplification of differences, and could lead to a dangerous religious reductionism and relativism. In fact, all religious teachings are built upon a specific ‘faith context’ and introduced by their own founders or teachers. Only through this perspective can religions be properly understood. For instance, there is no Christianity without Christ, no Buddhism without Buddha, and no Islam without Mohammed. A generalization that all religions are the same will lead to intense bitterness rather than harmony.

On the other hand, tolerance based upon exclusivist paradigm does not seem in tune with reality emerging from the present situation of religious pluralism. There are very real and important differences among the various religions and these ought to be acknowledged and respected without becoming points of violence and tragic conflicts.  Religious tolerance is all about allowing different religious beliefs to exist even if one may not agree with them and may oppose them intellectually.  It is not about perceiving other religions as a threat or an opponent, but welcomed them as a partner on a common journey of faith.  Just like the clash of ideas in science or philosophy, the clash of ideas in the pursuit of Spiritual Truth does not have to become a factor of social conflict, nor do we have to try to suppress it is order to maintain social and religious harmony.

In light of this, religious tolerance is not in the absence of criticism of religions. Critical attitude toward religions is necessary because it can prevent the suppression of Truth under the pretext of not offending anyone's religious belief. What cannot be tolerated are the use of violence in promoting a particular belief and the use violence in responding to criticism of religions. But then the question is: what statements or acts related to religions that can be categorized as criticism? For certain people who embrace religion A (or not embracing any religion at all), they may raise their opinion about religion B and think or believe that their opinion is merely criticism. But for people who embrace the latter religion, the opinion may constitute an insult. In this case, should violence toward the former group of people be condoned and promoted? Now, imagine the reverse situation because it is always conceivable that people from religion B mock or insult religion A or C or other religions. Should violence toward people who embrace religion B, or for those who mock religion A or C or other religions, be condoned and promoted? If the answer is yes, then chaos, mass violence and mass killings will be everywhere and will happen at any time. In such case, to have no religion would be infinitely better than having religion. So, the issue in religious tolerance is not whether people have the rights to criticize religions. The real and much more important issue is, how should religious believers react to any criticism, regardless whether the criticism is provocative or insulting? If religions cannot stand provocation or insult, how can we expect religions to provide moral foundations for people in facing real life which is always be filled with insults and provocative acts anyway? Religions are not present to grant people with the promise of a soft and easy life but they are supposed to equip people with moral values to face tough life.

Recognizing and respecting the fact that there are major differences between religions as well as responding with non-violence reactions to criticism or even insult, will not automatically lead to religious tolerance. True religious tolerance is based upon respect for religious freedom, and not by the assumption that everything must be tolerated for the sake of harmony.  This may be best described by the meaning of religious intolerance as “emotional, psychological, philosophical, and religious attitudes that may prompt acts of discrimination or other violations of religious freedom, as well as manifestations of hate and persecutions against persons or groups of a different religion or belief”.[iii]  Thus, the foundation of religious tolerance is religious freedom.

Religious freedom

A comparison of ratings for religious freedom with ratings for political rights and civil liberties for 37 countries shows that freedom of religion generally correlates very closely with civil liberties.[iv] This is not surprising since religious freedom constitutes the very heart of human rights and it “cuts across a wide range of human rights”.[v] It encompasses the freedom for particular individual religious practices, the freedoms of particular bodies, houses of worship, humanitarian organizations, educational institutions, and it includes the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of association.[vi] This suggests that allowing others to practice their religious belief and yet restricting their rights to build their house of worship, carry out their humanitarian missions, and establish their religious-based educational institution constitutes a violation of religious freedom.

Every person shall have the right to freely choose any religion or faith, either individually or with others, in public or in private. This freedom allows the individual to determine his or her religious practice without hindrance by the government or other social or religious establishments.  No person may coerce another person or be subject to coercion to adopt or profess any religion or faith. A person's freedom to profess and propagate his or her religion may be subject to limitations only when such restrictions are necessary to protect the safety of society, public order or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

It is fundamentally crucial to understand that the freedom of religion is not the product of social contracts. Nor is it a product of human laws or ideologies. Social contracts and laws are merely agreements between people. Freedoms granted by social contracts and laws may not be fully trusted because they may be not only violated but also used to establish superiority of one group over another. They may last for now but become a history tomorrow.

 The right and freedom to have a religious belief have much deeper roots.  They have their origin in the nature of relationship between the Creator and the creation (human beings).  The Rights of Man “do not come from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”[vii]  Since the creation, the Creator has given us the Right, the power, and the freedom to choose between light and darkness, good or evil, love or hate. With this Right and freedom, we have liberty to choose our own way, find our own destiny, and not have others—community, society, or the government, choose them for us. That means human being has freedom and liberty before the Creator, even the freedom to reject the Creator Itself which comes with consequence. As Ulil Abshar-Abdalla wrote, “Worship toward God has no meaning if it is not positioned in the frame of human as the free subject...”[viii]

Any attempt to suppress religious freedom is essentially denying the existence of the Creator. Since it is the Creator that has granted the Rights and freedoms, they are inalienably and unquestionably held as truth for all-time. Neither any groups nor government can take them away. Unfortunately, many religious leaders have misunderstood this fundamental concept. As a result, millions of religious followers have been misled to believe that the establishment of a uniform religious belief, often by any means which is contradictory with the freedom of religion, is perceived as a main duty of religious followers.

  Your comment

Back to top