Religious Tolerance

[Valke2]

In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:

Rabbi Doctor Abraham Joshua Heschel, in an essay entitled “No Religion is an Island”, wrote:

"No religion is an island: there is no monopoly on holiness. We are companions of all who revere Him. We rejoice when His name is praised. No religion is an island: we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds. The creation of one Adam promotes peace. No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

"There is no monopoly on holiness: there is no truth without humility. We are diverse in our devotion and commitment. We must unite in working now for the kingship of God. He is near to all who call on Him in truth. There can be disagreement without disrespect. Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart, opening minds to the challenges of faith.

“Should we hope for each other’s failure? Or should we pray for each other’s welfare? Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt as we share the precarious position of being human. Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain. Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.”

 

[holy_wood]

*Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.
It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.
Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.
Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

*“Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of stability.”

• His Excellency Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Servant of God

Not all religions are equal. Some theologies bring its adherants to advocate against certain evils in the world which other faiths may not (abortion, contraception, euthanasia, ect.).

With that being said, in respect to Judaism, Jews should not be persecuted and they too should recognize Christianities role in the salvation of mankind.

Peace

 

[swariffin]

Dear Valke,

That is a great post. That is correct. The RCC has already acknowledged the truth in other religion too, including Islam since the 2nd Vatican council. No other religion, including the one who claims to be the true christian ever do so. Why the RCC declared that? Simply because we cannot limit or dictate on how God reveal Himself to human, and also human will interpret God subject to our culture, education, etc. No wonder we have so many interpretations on God’s salvation.

 

[Booklover]

If someone decided to revive the old Aztec religion that called for human sacrifice, should that be allowed and "tolerated???

If a religion calls for violence against unbelievers, should it be respected or tolerated??

Vickie

 

[Valke2]

If someone decided to revive the old Aztec religion that called for human sacrifice, should that be allowed and "tolerated???

If a religion calls for violence against unbelievers, should it be respected or tolerated??

Vickie

Even a cursory reading of the OP answers your question.

 

[dolphinlove]

If someone decided to revive the old Aztec religion that called for human sacrifice, should that be allowed and "tolerated???

If a religion calls for violence against unbelievers, should it be respected or tolerated??

Vickie

Doh Vickie, you took my idea

 

[ralphinal]

Valke, I love the signature.

I think that we should all look at any religious doctrine apart from those who believe it. If we start with Judaism as being correct and inspired, we must accept it as a possible way. If then we can say that Christianity flowed from it in an inspired way, we should be tolerant of it as well. There is no logical reason that Christians and Jews should not tolerate each other, unless you say that toleration is not enough. We should embrace each other as Children of the same God.

Now, other faiths are different. Can we say that they are truly inspired? Should we judge them by the same ways? I have no issue with tolerance or religious diversity. Just do not try to sell me that Satanism is equal to Christianity or Judaism.

 

[rpp]

Doh Vickie, you took my idea

Mine too!

While what OP quoted Rabbi Heschel is true in a very literal sense, it is not complete. Holiness in itself is not a sign of truth. I have known some very well behaved and ascetic atheists.

The quote is skating on the thin edge between tolerance and Indifferentism, the later being a heresy.

While true, without the full context, I find the quote dubious. I would want to see this in its full context before drawing any further conclusions.

BTW,

Dolphinlove, I thought you had left for Europe already, yet I see your signature line. Are you back or are you about to leave? When do/did you leave and return?

 

[Valke2]

Mine too!

While what OP quoted Rabbi Heschel is true in a very literal sense, it is not complete. Holiness in itself is not a sign of truth. I have known some very well behaved and ascetic atheists.

The quote is skating on the thin edge between tolerance and Indifferentism, the later being a heresy.

While true, without the full context, I find the quote dubious. I would want to see this in its full context before drawing any further conclusions.

BTW,

Dolphinlove, I thought you had left for Europe already, yet I see your signature line. Are you back or are you about to leave? When do/did you leave and return?

What part of the quote do you find dubious? I think it is pretty self explanatory. As for context, I thought I had put it in context. If you feel you need more: escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=scjr

 

[ibkc]

Religious tolerance, to me, is believing that people of all faiths should be able to freely practice their faiths without interference, as long as that faith doesn’t violate basic standards of civilization (for instance, a religion that requires human sacrifice would be one operating outside of current standards of civilization.)

Religious tolerance does not mean acknowledging all faiths as true, or never criticizing any aspect of any religion.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:

Rabbi Doctor Abraham Joshua Heschel, in an essay entitled “No Religion is an Island”, wrote:

"No religion is an island: there is no monopoly on holiness. We are companions of all who revere Him. We rejoice when His name is praised. No religion is an island: we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds. The creation of one Adam promotes peace. No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

"There is no monopoly on holiness: there is no truth without humility. We are diverse in our devotion and commitment. We must unite in working now for the kingship of God. He is near to all who call on Him in truth. There can be disagreement without disrespect. Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart, opening minds to the challenges of faith.

“Should we hope for each other’s failure? Or should we pray for each other’s welfare? Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt as we share the precarious position of being human. Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain. Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.”

Fantastic, truely fantastic.

Are there any of his writtings you would particularly recomend?

 

[Valke2]

Fantastic, truely fantastic.

Are there any of his writtings you would particularly recomend?

You might want to start with “I Asked For Wonder” which is a book of short quotes/passages from some of his other works. THen if anything strikes you, you can get the book it was taken from. You can’t really go wrong with any of his books, although some are more oriented to non-jews than others.

 

[brkn1]

The question “Are we not all God’s children?” can be answered with “No.” according to the Bible.
Due to original sin, we are “children of wrath” or “of the devil” until the Holy Spirit does His sovereign work of adopting us into God’s family, which Jesus referred to as being “born again”. (John:3)
Jesus also said that we “can not tell whence it(HS) cometh, and whither it (HS) goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.” This means that we do not control how God makes us born again by any ritual as baptism or such. The process of our becoming a child of God is not up to human workings. We can not even be sure who is a child of God by that standard. It is entirely the “work of God” (John 6:29).

 

[Valke2]

bump

 

[angelusm]

In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:

Rabbi Doctor Abraham Joshua Heschel, in an essay entitled “No Religion is an Island”, wrote:

"No religion is an island: there is no monopoly on holiness. We are companions of all who revere Him. We rejoice when His name is praised. No religion is an island: we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds. The creation of one Adam promotes peace. No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

"There is no monopoly on holiness: there is no truth without humility. We are diverse in our devotion and commitment. We must unite in working now for the kingship of God. He is near to all who call on Him in truth. There can be disagreement without disrespect. Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart, opening minds to the challenges of faith.

“Should we hope for each other’s failure? Or should we pray for each other’s welfare? Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt as we share the precarious position of being human. Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain. Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.”

I don’t care what the rabbi says because I obey the pope. The title of your post is confusing. If I say that I am righ and you are wrong it deosn’t mean that I am intolerant. It means only that I think in a logical way. If I believe in something, it’s because I believe it’s true. So if you believe in something else I have no choice and I have to call it false. Don’t try to make impression that all religions are right. I obviously understand that you as a Jew do everything to justify your disbelief in Jesus. You have to fail.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Fantastic, truely fantastic.

Are there any of his writtings you would particularly recomend?

he’s baaaaaack!

i know, this is a fun forum. i couldnt resist either. i was able to keep away for more than a month though.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t care what the rabbi says because I obey the pope. The title of your post is confusing. If I say that I am righ and you are wrong it deosn’t mean that I am intolerant. It means only that I think in a logical way. If I believe in something, it’s because I believe it’s true. So if you believe in something else I have no choice and I have to call it false. Don’t try to make impression that all religions are right. I obviously understand that you as a Jew do everything to justify your disbelief in Jesus. You have to fail.

hasn’t the Pope made comments very similar in spirit and in letter to those of this good rabbi?

“there can be disagreement without disrespect”. absolutely, charity demands it.

“Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?” yes and yes.

now if i can just try to live up to the spirit of this message.

 

[Jerusha]

We have the responsibility to confront religions whose teachings encourage racism or violence. However, even those religions have some truth in them. If the adherents of a religion seem to advocate such things as racism or violence, then we have the responsibility to look into their teachings to see if those behaviors are encouraged by their teachings, or if there is another cause.

For example, the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, at least on the part of the Jews, is not a result of Jewish teachings, but I think it is both a reaction to Palestinian/Arab resistance to the return, and “Stockholm Syndrome” (do unto others the injustices that have been done unto you )

Tomarin, your perception is very accurate.

 

[elvisman]

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
- G. K. Chesterton

---

 

[Valke2]

I have conviction. I am convinced that Jews, Christians and Muslims and Others can find and apprehend God within their own religion and that when they do so, there is no reason not to be tolerant and respectful of their beliefs.