Limits of tolerance

Western governments successfully protested the trial ? and possible death penalty ? of an Afghan convert to Christianity. (Under Islamic law, those who convert from Islam have three days to reconsider.) The Western protests were made in the name of “religious tolerance” by leaders in Afghanistan. Are those Western leaders being intolerant of a religion by demanding Afghan Muslims not to follow their tenets, or are there certain religious laws that are not deserving of tolerance?

There is a lot of sway in being tolerant to the beliefs of another faith; however, when a life is at stake, the tolerance debate does not hold water. We cannot sit by and watch while someone is executed for exercising their right to choose their own faith. It is interesting to me that the media has turned tolerance against this man. Is it because he is a Christian?

Last year, when a woman was sentenced to death in Africa for having an adulterous affair, the world community was justifiably in an uproar. But now it is about a man choosing to follow Jesus, and we are being called intolerant of the beliefs of Islam.

Both cases concerned Sharia (Islamic law). Both of their lives were at stake. It is a tell-tale sign of our culture that we are more tolerant of someone’s sexual choices than of someone’s religious ones.

Jesus said, “I am the life.” We are created in the image of God and as such have intrinsic dignity. Every human life should be respected and valued. That does not mean there are no consequences for breaking laws, but it does mean that the punishment of death just because he doesn’t agree with the popular beliefs of his countryman does not reflect the dignity of the human soul to make a choice. It also does not reflect the fact that you cannot force someone to choose to follow.

This man choose to follow Christ 16 years ago. It is only now that he was found out. His choice obviously did not destroy his ability to be a productive member of society. The beauty and Achilles heal of Christianity is that it is founded on the right to choose. Without the right to choose, we cannot truly love God, and the result is man-made religion. Islam means “submit” or “submission.” There is no choice in the type of submission Sharia teaches. There is no love, just religion. I am not very tolerant of religion that kills.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

There are no religious laws that justify killing someone because they want to change their religious beliefs. This is a political issue, not a religious issue. It deals with power and control and is part of a political system that seeks to dominate people’s lives. The whole world must take a stand to protect not only this man but all of the women and children who are killed, imprisoned and tortured.

SENIOR PASTOR

JAMES TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

Cultures clash in our world. Global citizens fail to understand one another at their own jeopardy. Our challenge is to recognize the credibility, the justice and the legitimacy in each other and to have creative and redemptive understanding of those who are different from ourselves. Such mutual respect is way beyond “tolerance,” which I think means “your way is OK ? but mine is better.”

Can western secularists and Middle Eastern religionists understand each other? The latter see democracy as a Western religion in which the people, not God, rule; the former see religion based exclusively on God’s fundamental rule as inherently hostile to human rights. There are thousands awaiting death sentences because of their religious convictions who have not had the benefit of intervention from President Bush, Pope Benedict XVI and the United Nations. I hope and pray not only that they and Abdur Rahman will be spared capital punishment, but also that they will be allowed to pursue the religion of their own choice in places of their own choosing ? a very Western hope and prayer.

This 41-year-old medical aid worker must know that his namesake, Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awl, was one of the first eight persons to accept Islam and one of the 10 persons whom the Prophet Muhammad assured would enter Paradise. Surely he has learned that Abdur Rahman did not escape the punishment early Muslins suffered at the hands of the Quraysh, Muhammad’s own tribe. Certainly this contemporary Afghan understands Sharia, Islamic law, on which Afghanistan’s current constitution is based. He must realize all he risked in converting to Christianity. This convert has been quoted as saying, “I have full awareness of what I have chosen. If I must die, I will die.” Then, in a clear reference to his faith, he added, “Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us!” Abdur Rahman is among those whose relationship with God is the highest priority. I rejoice to be in that company,; and I am deeply thankful to be a citizen of this country where we, all too often, take religious freedom, human rights and other great blessings for granted.

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Bludgeoning one into belief is a repugnant remnant of benighted times. Coercing the disenchanted to remain faithful is no less revolting than forcing conversion by the sword.

Muslims trumpet Islam’s tolerance and aver there must be no compulsion in matters of faith. Yet we witness mass demonstrations, whipped up by leading clergy, convicting Abdul Rahman for his convictions, screaming for the death of a man whose crime is commitment to conscience. In their world of absolute Manichaean binary dichotomies, Rahman’s persecutors see humanity as divided into opposing camps of believers and unbelievers, and Rahman has gone over to the “dark” side.

The judge in the case said it is illegal to be Christian in an Islamic republic like Afghanistan. It was none other than Rahman’s family who denounced him to the authorities, knowing full well the punishment that would follow such a revelation. A compromise was considered that would have labeled Rahman as insane, for who but someone not in control of his faculties would forsake the Koran for the New Testament?

Historically, certain Jews embraced the dominant faith of their societies as an attractive option for escaping discrimination and achieving success in the wider culture. Some turned on their former Jewish brethren, spying and informing, ingratiating themselves with their new coreligionists. Apostasy from Judaism has a bitter history. While I would lament anyone leaving the Jewish fold, his departure would not be considered an act of treason meriting a capital sentence, nor could it be conceived as a humiliation of God. I love my religion no less than a Muslim loves his, but belief must be prompted by an inner appeal, not society’s truncheon.

Many are the calls to sever this offender’s head and tear him to pieces. Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom estimates that hundreds of apostates from Islam are murdered around the world every year. Is this why we lavished our treasure and spilled our blood to defend Afghanistan, so it could remain mired in the mentality of the Dark Ages?

It is increasingly difficult to accept that we have here but another example of extremists hijacking the true Islam and that the preponderance of Muslims are peacefully inclined, desirous of democracy, tolerant and enlightened, progressive proponents of human rights.

While Abdul Rahman has been released owing to international pressure, he cannot remain alive in Afghanistan. He would not survive one moment at home or on the street. Reports have surfaced of Afghan Christians being threatened, beaten and jailed in recent days. If Rahman thought he faced danger from the authorities, he is even more threatened by Muslim vigilantes.

Fundamentalists who deny the funda- mental right of religious freedom should be excoriated from every quarter of the civilized world. This is not an internal matter but a violation of what should be a universal norm: the prerogative to change one’s mind, the right to embrace a faith without fear of retribution.

The name “Rahman” means “compassion” or “mercy.” Abdul Rahman will have to leave the Muslim world to find it.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Is it intolerant not to tolerate intolerance?

The more we think about this, the more we sense the limitations of words. We realize we will need to look elsewhere, to open our hearts and minds so that dialogue and understanding can be possible at a deeper level. The tide of history is toward religious freedom, but not all nations presently consider that ideal or concede its inevitability. How can we relate to them in a way that does not create or sustain a war?

How fortunate that the Afghan courts found a way to duck the conflict between Islamic law and universal human rights by dropping the case for lack of evidence ? and saving Rahman’s life. His cause was supported by the U.S. government, European human rights groups, the Vatican and international activists, but I believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most objective and authoritative statement on international human rights. Championed by Eleanor Roosevelt and passed by member countries of the United Nations in 1948, Article 18 affirms the right to freedom of religion, and it specifically states the right of people to change their religion.

I believe in time Islamic law will change because the interpretations of scriptures, the role of religious authority, and the political structures of nations naturally evolve through increased contact with other peoples. In Western history, the faith of a conquering ruler was forced upon the people of the nation, and the church and state were unified until the 18th century. Religious leaders and the rulers of nations eventually learned that conversion by persuasion rather than by the sword respected human dignity and best served the interests of both church and state. Globalization, mass commun- ication, travel and immigration make it increasingly impossible to block competing ideas. Living with tolerance in a religiously mixed society is an inevitable characteristic of “the global village.” As Catholic Cardinal Avery Dulles recently wrote in America magazine, “There are still rulers in the world who seek to enforce uniformity of faith. They are both troublesome neighbors and threats to global peace. Sooner or later, populations that have been compelled to adopt the religion of their rulers will demand freedom to make conscientious choices.” In our day, the credibility of religious groups is compromised if they seem to be the cause of war rather than the agents for peaceful resolution. In many cases, extremists use the cloak of religion to serve their cultural, political and economic goals.

In Zen there is no virtue in trying to persuade people to adopt views, whether Zen or Buddhist or any other. In fact, we seek to become more aware of how often we are fixated on opinions and attached to ideologies and beliefs, rather than using doctrines only as guides. Compassionate dialogue is the best means to raise awareness about the real issues of fear, identity, narrowness and fanaticism. We discover truth in the experience of life, not in the defense of concepts.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

dpt.rick-olsen-intheory-bwPhotoInfoSJ1PHMB420060401hsoykikf(LA)dpt.jim-turrell-intheoryPhotoInfoSJ1PHMBG20060401ic57v6kf(LA)dpt.deborah-barrett-intheoryPhotoInfoSJ1PHMF620060401icpm4ykf(LA)dpt.mark-miller-bw-intheoryPhotoInfoSJ1PHMF220060401hryyt5kf(LA)dpt.peter-haynes-intheoryPhotoInfoSJ1PHMEU20060401hgg398kf(LA)