Theological Arguments Against Intolerance Dr. W. Kenneth Williams, Scholar-in-Residence Baptist Joint Committee Washington, D.C. The concept of civic tolerance is grounded in theological conviction as much as in constitutional principles. God has created human beings as free moral agents to respond as they see fit. We must not violate the rights of others to respond to God freely and without coercion. The notion of religious liberty is founded upon the primary theological precept that God created humanity in God's own image. The image of God, however poetic or prosaic it comes to be expressed in our various religious forms, has everything to do with the human ability to choose. As rational beings, humans are separated from the rest of creation by the gift of discernment. Human beings are free of any divine programming so that they might, of their own choice, accept the invitation to partnership with God. God wants voluntary worshipers, not automatons or slaves. It is this principle against which every effort towards religious conformity must be measured. Attempts to coerce others to comply with religious values with which they do not freely agree denigrates the principle of freedom. This is particularly true when government is solicited to endorse and promote specific religious views. Some believe that the Christian faith should be favored both in government and in citizenship. They believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and should be maintained with that religious identity. They would show tolerance for the presence and practices of other faiths, but Christianity would be the preferred faith. Two presumptions come together to make such an elitist claim possible. One is the belief that the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ cancels any possible - even partial - truth in other religious expressions. The other is a reduction of democracy to simple majority rule. The government should reflect the religious sensibilities of the majority and require a Christian conversion for aspirants to political office. The majority would be more free than the minority. Full citizenship would be denied a large segment of the population simply because of their chosen and claimed religious beliefs. The inconsistency of this thinking with the notion of God-given freedom of choice and the integrity of personal response to God is obvious. It is equally inconsistent with the history of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Many of the early exponents of religious liberty in the emerging republic were people of faith. They understood the primacy of free choice in religious practice. For the most part they were persons who had been persecuted as religious minorities in Europe and in new world colonies with established churches. They knew personally the penalties to be paid for the expression of conscience. With the coercive power of the state at the disposal of established churches, the choice for minorities was to go along or flee. The record shows that the individual freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights came out of intense lobbying from those who paid the price for daring to claim conscience as a part of their religious practice. To claim the right of conscience for themselves, that same right had to be guaranteed for all people. Only in this kind of society could such a guarantee of conscience be recognized. How could those who had come out of deeply evangelical roots who were absolutely certain of the truth of the claims of their faith and the authority of Christian scriptures have such tolerance for the religions of other cultures, as well as for those who rejected religion entirely? The answer lies, at least partially, in their understanding of revelation. These early proponents of religious liberty came to understand revelation as progressive.* Rather than believe that God had revealed all truth at once, to be observed as the final authority for all generations, they believed that the future might be open to further divine revelation. This made possible a degree of humility that tempered the exclusivism that some faiths might otherwise hold as absolute over others. In their passion for freedom, and with their notion of divine revelation yet to come, the builders of the foundation of America proposed and fought for a society in which religion would stand on its own merits, free of state sponsorship or control. God's ultimate reality supersedes any earthly authority. So it is that in government's eyes, the religious convictions of the smallest sect would be on equal footing with those embraced by the greatest majority. With tolerance for all and preference for none, the religions of all people could be practiced freely. The Religious Right is wrong to claim a favored place for Christianity in American society and governance. They are wrong both constitutionally and theologically. The Bill of Rights cannot be erased by the will of the majority. History cannot be rewritten to defend the claim that America was established as a "Christian nation." God's creation of humanity as free and capable of choice is a theological 'first principle.' In political society the corollary is freedom of conscience. To abridge the first denies the intention of God. To abridge the second is to replace liberty with tyranny. *. See Williams E. Estep, Revolution Within the Revolution: The First Amendment in Historical Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1990).u =================================================== How to Win: A Practical Guide for Defeating the Radical Right in Your Community Copyright 1994 by Radical Right Task Force Permission is granted to reproduce this publication in whole or in part. All other rights reserved. For more information contact: Pat Lewis National Jewish Democratic Council 711 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-7636 =================================================== This document is from the Politics section of the WELL gopher server: gopher://gopher.well.com/11/Politics/ Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com .