Recent articles have, I believe, served to resurrect some persistent questions concerning our capacity for tolerating differing religious traditions.  In a “Newsweek” article written by Jon Meacham entitled “Let Reformation Begin at Ground Zero” appearing in the September 6, 2010 issue, Mr. Meacham in essence called for a reformation of the religion of Islam.

This excerpt from the “Newsweek” article:

 “… Still, Islam needs reform. There are virulent elements of anti-Semitism and sexism abroad in the faith…Christianity might offer something of a constructive model in terms of reformation…”

And then also this: “… America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience…”

In a letter to “Newsweek”, I posed this question along with some related thoughts:

“But then why should only Islam require reform? Admittedly, from a Christianized, Protestant American perspective, that may indeed appear to be the case, but such a narrow-minded observation on Mr. Meacham’s part proves to be little more than an impoverishment of knowledge when it comes to a world-view of all religions. Islam, after all, would no doubt express a similar sentiment about Christianity. So it’s not Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or any one particular religion which is in need of reform … it’s all religions, period. And that is precisely why all the hatred and the outgrowth of all that hatred - wars, all of them fought in the name of religion, will tragically go on. Freedom isn’t after all a singular concept, but instead consists of a number of ingredients, yet perhaps nothing is more important to true and abiding freedom than the prevailing and now utterly missing, spirit of tolerance. Successful religious reform, then, would have to be enacted interior to and through each religion and would require us all to look beyond ourselves to a new era of understanding and tolerance; yes even welcoming views which are unlike our own.”

And then on September 9, 2010 I came across a YouTube video posting on Facebook about Dr. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor at Dallas’ First Baptist church.  The video depicts his recent message delivered from the church pulpit in which he was responding to a newspaper column written earlier by The Dallas Morning News’ columnist Steve Blow. This video is available on YouTube and runs some nine plus minutes, yet I would recommend that you view it in its entirety. In it, Dr. Jeffress is apparently attempting to address and clarify his stance on the Muslim religion of Islam. I also posted a comment in response to that YouTube video which reads:

“The “rightness” of both Steve Blow’s column and Dr. Jeffress’ response really are not in question here, in my opinion. I believe both individuals hold very strong convictions on this subject. Both of them no doubt feel they are “speaking the truth”. But such charges and counter-charges get us nowhere and change nothing. This type of discourse never rings true in a public forum because it presupposes that Christianity at large and Islam at large somehow each subscribe to but one true way. The only true religion, I believe, is a very personal one; one that does not arbitrarily include people in groups. News organizations do everyone a grave disservice by reporting and giving more voice to what should be an extremely private discussion.”

In considering both of these stories, additional questions arose concerning religion itself and whether or not certain religion traditions may tend to serve as either a depressant or stimulant, as it were, fostering intolerance and bigotry.  Both of these, I believe, are clearly exhibited in each of the stories I have discussed in this article.  And although there is much historical, scientifically–based research available on this topic, I realize even before I note some of one study’s findings that many readers are likely to reject the findings out-of-hand. Apparently, such is the nature of the discussion.

In “The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium, Volume 7″ published in 1994, article authors Batson and Burris did not, in my opinion, manage to arrive at any solid substantial conclusion in their studies yet they did manage to present some evidence which may shed some light on why it is as a rule that we tend to harbor such strong feelings and opinions concerning religion and intolerance. In their study, Batson and Burris point out that they believe there is a positive correlation between the idea of our being “religious” and in being prejudiced. At face value, of course, that statement on its own would appear to be an unduly simplistic generalization and conclusion about what is clearly a very complex subject. And so as it turns out, we clearly must examine their statement further before we can hope to come to any meaningful conclusions.

The researchers go on to further suggest that there are three derivatives that involve how we go about practicing religion. These include an extrinsic, intrinsic and a quest derivative of approach to most belief systems. And so supposedly if we use religion extrinsically, that is, in what amounts to a self-serving manner, we are then much more likely to be prejudiced when it comes to views of religion that we believe are counter to our own closely-held beliefs. On the other hand, if we practice religion in what can be thought of as being an intrinsic manner, we are much less likely to exhibit clear signs of prejudice and discrimination. Yet even in this more personal intrinsic expression of religion, there still often remains a covert prejudice of which we are often largely unaware. Perhaps this hidden prejudice amounts to little more than a clear expression of our humanness.

But then Batson and Burris also say that there is a third expression of most religious practices; one which is much more personal than either the aforementioned extrinsic and intrinsic derivatives; an expression that clearly proves to be more open-minded and fair in its outlook. In fact, this quest for God can be viewed as providing an effective antidote to religious prejudice and intolerance. Yet here it must be noted that in the expression of a quest for a deeper knowledge of God, that there is often exhibited little more than only a general personal disposition toward openness and tolerance. So tolerance can indeed be present, but then only God, after all, truly knows the true heart of man.

And so the discussion goes on, frustratingly endless both in its reach and in its scope. As does the current inflammatory rhetoric and most unwise public condemnation and counter-condemnation of each other’s religious traditions that now seem to be garnering a large share of today’s headlines. I must admit that I have no pat answers to submit to you here. But I do believe that the better answers to these difficult questions most likely lie not in publicly running down our neighbor’s beliefs, practices and traditions, but rather in the deep personalization of our own individual religious convictions.

In short that means we meed to be extremely vigilant and yes, very much on guard whenever any mainstream religious leaders of any particular groups say that they are “speaking the truth” for the many, rather than simply just for themselves. In the final analysis, after all, it will be we as individuals who will each answer to our creator in an entirely singular manner.