on tolerance sam harris mormons and me

On Tolerance, Sam Harris, the Mormons and Me

Watching the recent PBS series on The Mormons and reflecting on the

comments to the Sonnet I wrote after re-reading Albert Camus' great

essay, The Unbelievers and the Christians, have got me thinking once

again about the importance of tolerance.

Here's one dictionary definition: Acceptance of different views: the

acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious

or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these

different views.

Like most religious traditions, the Mormons have been both the victims

of and the perpetrators of atrocities undertaken because of a lack of

acceptance of their "differing views" and way of life. Watching the

series, I was struck by how the early Mormons, who had suffered so

much intolerance and brutality themselves, could lose themselves and

become involved in a mass murder at Mountain Meadows. Religious

historian Kathleen Flake said: What I think gives Mountain Meadows its

continuing power is our failure either inside or our failure outside

the community to understand how that could have happened. And until

someone does that, it will continue to illuminate.

That's exactly how I feel about the historic legacy of Luther's

Anti-Semitism, which I wrote about at length here. It is always so

much easier to look at the Other than to face the failings of one's

own tradition. But any discussion of intolerance has to begin with

ourselves, with me. To some extent tolerance is related to having the

humility and wisdom to realize that our own views, however deeply

held, do not consitute the final truth. This may be why relgious

traditions that have a missionary aspect have often been more likely

to become intolerant than those who accept that there are numerous

approaches to spiritual life. (For a slightly offensive but humorous

film on Atheist prosletyzing, click here.)

Some frustrated atheists, including Sam Harris, have recently been

advocating not reason but intolerance. They see religion as inherently

dangerous. As I noted in my poem, Harris recently wrote: "The very

ideal of religious tolerance--born of the notion that every human

being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God--is one of

the principal forces driving us toward the abyss." This is, of course,

a very dangerous idea--whether it comes from zealots on the religious

right or from atheists who would ban the binding together that is at

the essence of religious expression.

Commenter Jess Wundrun wrote: I think the atheists that you complain

about in your poem can be as bad as the fundies, but at this point the

pendulum has swung so far away from the rightfully secular nature of

our government that atheists have to be extremely vocal. Sometimes

that might be shrill. But the silence of the atheists is far more

frightening than a dose of shrill to get us back where we belong. But

there is a difference between being shrill and being intolerant.

I don't care how shrill Mr. Harris and his supporters are in inviting

others to share their view that religious belief is inherently flawed.

But when they they denounce tolerance, when they seek to deny me my

own autonomy and choices, they become bullies who believe they have a

monopoly on truth. And history has shown that it is that process--not