Minimizing religious differences doesn't work. Even some First Amendment scholars like Charles Haynes are beginning to understand that. From the recent Freedom Forum article:
It was bound to happen.
For nearly 11 months now, political leaders have tried to unite America with well-meaning (but glib) statements affirming all religions and insisting that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. And we've had innumerable interfaith prayer services with watered-down 'to-whom-it-may-concern' prayers.
All of these (well-intentioned) efforts paper over deep religious differences. In reality, for most Jews, Christians, Muslims and others it does matter what you believe -- it matters not only for this life, but for all eternity. And it matters how you pray (and to whom).
Ignoring religious differences doesn't work. Now comes the inevitable backlash from people angry about "feel-good" attempts at religious unity. And it's not a pretty sight.
At a gathering of Southern Baptist pastors in June, the Rev. Jerry Vines decided to take the gloves off. He called Islam?s prophet Muhammad "a demon-possessed pedophile." And for good measure, he declared that "Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people."
Is this our choice? Do we have to choose between pretending that we're all the same or demonizing the other guy?
While calling for honesty in discussion between parties with religious differences, Haynes fails to distinguish between a statement intended to "demonize the other guy" and one which actually conveys theological content to the hearers.
NEWSFLASH -- ATTENTION MR. HAYNES: Both Islam and Christianity contain religious content related to evil spiritual activity and demonic entities. People from both groups are likely to make reference to such in their discussion.
His difficulty in discerning between a mean-spirited personal attack and a consistent application of theological content to contemporary context is neither unusual nor unexpected. Like it or not, Americans have by and large not remained immune to cultural "to-whom-it-may-concern" theology. Probably chief among misguided suppositions is that the first commandment does not concern itself with whether one follows other gods or not.
Rather, most (like Haynes) appear to suppose any and all god's first commandment is simply: "Thou shalt always be nice." Or if not from heaven, then at least from a Platonic American Ideal.
Haynes suggests a third option between the mamby-pamby and the vitriolic sorts of interaction: one which actually hopes to treat religious groups with something approaching respect enough to allow them to be true to themselves, to show some integrity and consistency in their language and conduct. I applaud Haynes for that effort and attitude.
Personal attacks, name-calling, ridicule and similar tactics destroy the fabric of our life together as American citizens. Civil debate -- the cornerstone of a successful democracy -- enables us to engage one another in ways that promote mutual understanding.
This is the part that makes me nervous, because it is the 'reasonable' ground which caused many American Christians to utterly forsake their historical writings and roots in the first place. Those of us whose theology heralds from the Reformation Era cannot fail (even with cursory glances) to notice our forefathers were well studied and accomplished in the lost art of Polemics. In fact, polemics and rhetoric were essential to a decent education -- theological or otherwise.
Over the last thirty years, almost every American denomination has publicly disavowed it's historical writings as 'intolerant' and 'unloving' expressions of the faith. Likewise, educated persons now study pop-psychology rather than polemics, and relativism in place of rhetoric. The general goal is no longer to communicate thoughtful content, but sincere emotion.
Regardless, I think Haynes is on the right track. Here's to hoping he and all of America stop their campaign to oversensitize and insulate every person from every word that could be construed as emotionally hurtful, and rather begin to grasp that (at least some) religious people intend to communicate something more than a personal insult or attack when they make mention of evil, of the demonic. Don't get me wrong: even religious people ought to exercise tact. But striking reference to evil or the demonic doesn't accomplish the goal Haynes hopes to accomplish. Indeed, I've been neither surprised nor terribly offended when a devout Muslim has told me to my face that the white man is the devil. People might actually be saying something with those words more than, "... and I think you suck!"
Such words just might tell me something about what the man actually believes.
