The Myth of Religious Tolerance

I found this excellent article in Crisis Magazine quite a while back, and I'm just now getting around to linking it here. It explains the difference between religious tolerance and religious liberty or freedom, and gives a very detailed argument for why religious tolerance is not enough. Here is an excerpt:

The Myth of Religious Tolerance

Religion is a good to be embraced and defended—not an evil to be put up with. No one speaks of tolerating chocolate pudding or a spring walk in the park. By speaking of religious “tolerance,” we make religion an unfortunate fact to be borne—like noisy neighbors and crowded buses—not a blessing to be celebrated. . . .

The language of tolerance was first proposed to describe the attitude that confessional states, such as Anglican England and Catholic France, should adopt toward Christians of other persuasions (though no mention was made of tolerance for non-Christian faiths). The assumption was that the state had recognized a certain confession as “true” and put up with other practices and beliefs as a concession to those in error. This led, however, to the employment of tolerance language toward religion. The philosophes would downplay or even ridicule religion in the firm belief that it would soon disappear altogether. Thus, separation of church and state becomes separation of public life and religious belief. Religion was excluded from public conversation and relegated strictly to the intimacy of home and chapel. Religious tolerance is a myth, but a myth imposed by an anti-religious intellectual elite.

This “tolerant” mentality is especially problematic when applied in non-confessional countries—such as the United States—where an attitude of tolerance is not that of the state religion toward unsanctioned creeds, but of a non-confessional secular state toward religion itself. Language of religious toleration of Christianity in Saudi Arabia would be a marked improvement over present conditions, and consistent with a confessional Muslim state’s belief that Christianity is a false religion. In a non-confessional state, such language is more pernicious. . . .

The Media on Religion

Terry Mattingly wrote an interesting column recently about the way that mainstream media reporters, even religion reporters, often simply don't understand religion, which leads them to report inaccurately on religious topics. Here's an excerpt:

Picture this scene. A flock of Pentecostal Christians has gathered at the U.S. Capitol for yet another prayer rally about sex, abortion, family values and the public square.

"At times, the mood turned hostile toward the lawmakers in the stately white building behind the stage," wrote The Washington Post in its coverage of the event. Then, without explanation, the story offered this on-stage quotation from a religious broadcaster: "Let's pray that God will slay everyone in the Capitol."

Slay what? Clearly, the reporters didn't know about the experience that Pentecostal Christians call being "slain in the Holy Spirit," in which they believe they are transformed by a surge of God's power. The result was a journalistic train wreck that ended up in the book The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect.

"The problem," wrote authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, "was that the reporters didn't know, didn't have any Pentecostals in the newsroom to ask, and was perhaps too anxious for a 'holy s---' story to double-check with someone afterward whether the broadcaster was really advocating the murder of the entire Congress." This mistake made "a strong case for the need for humility" at the news desk, they said.

Let me say "amen" to that, speaking as a journalism professor and as a religion-beat veteran who has winced in recent decades when reading these kinds of corrections (including a few of my own).

Truth is, far too many journalists veer into mental ditches when asked to cover events and trends rooted in religion. That's bad news when it comes time for serious, accurate coverage of a variety of stories that ordinary readers care about — from trends in Hollywood to debates about free speech in schools, from "sectarian" bloodbaths in Iraq to hard data linking what happens in pews to what happens in ballot boxes.

Click here for the full article: The Media, God, and Gaffes

I think that the problem identified in this article is actually symptomatic of a larger problem with the mainstream media, which is that they often don't seem to be all that knowledgeable about any advanced topic, whether it is religion, science, law, or whatever. I notice this myself, any time that the media reports on a topic that I happen to know a lot about. I find that it is not uncommon at all for the media simply to get facts wrong, and to perpetuate a distorted view of certain topics. And I don't think that this always or even usually means that they are biased, but rather that when it comes to many advanced topics, they sometimes just don't adequately understand what they are talking about. But maybe I'm just too much of a perfectionist -- I'd be interested to know if people besides me have noticed this same phenomenon.