Of tolerance and apathy, and the distance between

As a card-carrying member of Generation X (I was born 1971, so I'm smack-dab in the middle), I can say on behalf of my generation that we've been steeped on tolerance as a virtue our entire lives. Concepts such as pluralism, multiculturalism, and tolerance that (mystifyingly to us) were controversial in the 1960's were, by the time I came of age, almost anodyne. We were shown the multi-ethnic "Electric Company" in school, and read in our textbooks the unblemished hagiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

But somewhere between then and now, the unarguable virtue of tolerance in theory got translated into apathy in practice. It wasn't simply enough to tolerate other beliefs, political or economic philosophies, religions, or lifestyles; one was required to eliminate all normative judgments and accept the equal validity of all choices made by others. Regarding religions, it's not p.c. to believe in one "true" religion. Instead, all religions must be said to be equally valid -- they are merely different paths to the same "god," whatever "god", or lack thereof, a person may choose to believe in.

But what is a religion but the sum of its constituent beliefs? To use an extreme example, if a religion believes in child sacrifice, is that an equally valid religion?

I, as a Christian, believe that my religion is the one true religion. And I fully expect adherents of any religion to believe their religion is the one true religion. Otherwise, why would they belong to that religion? The fact that I believe my religion is true and others' isn't doesn't mean non-Christians should be subject to any discrimination on the basis of their beliefs. By the same token, the right of others to freely practice their religion or non-religion is in no way infringed by my assertion that their belief structure is wrong and mine is right.

In one sense, it is true that there is some truth in any religion, because any religion is an honest attempt to respond to God's presence in our lives. It is also the case that there is some truth in atheism and agnosticism. At its best, atheism is an attempt to be intellectually honest about the state of the universe and a rejection of soft-headed religiosity; it's an assertion of existential self-reliance. Similarly, agnosticism captures the truth that God created us to do more than just go to church every day, read the Bible, and sing from the hymnbook -- he created us to live life. Some of us have inherited the lot of grappling with larger than life issues about the nature of humanity's struggle, but I'm not surprised or disappointed that others find such grappling tedious or superfluous to daily life (I feel this way myself sometimes).

I would also concede that there is more truth in atheism, agnosticism, and some other religions than there is in Christianity as wrongly practiced by many prominent Christians today. But that doesn't mean -- by a long stretch -- that all belief structures or "faith traditions" (to use the p.c.-approved term) are equally true.

The central precepts of Christianity are freedom, forgiveness, self-discipline, and care of others. Yes, we believe in miracles, the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Jesus, and some people can't accept the dubious factual historicity of these beliefs based on their subversion of observable scientific principles. My short response to this is that scientific paradigms do not explain the entirety of existence, and scientific skepticism as a posture from which to experience life is very often useful but can also become a stumbling block in understanding the larger truths about human experience and the meaning (if you want to call it that) of our existence.

I give this one paragraph summary of Christianity to return to what I said earlier: A religion is nothing if not the sum of its constituent beliefs. This is what I believe true Christianity is, in my own words, and it's why I believe Christianity is "true" and other religions aren't. If you don't agree with my assertion that Christianity is better than other religions or with how I've summarized the precepts of Christianity, fine. But at least recognize that Christianity (again, as I've described it) stands for something, and so do each of its alternatives. And when well-meaning "tolerant" people treat Christianity, Islam, atheism, and New Age as interchangeable belief structures, they're doing a disservice to each of these belief structures and their adherents.

Tolerance is difficult dance. One of the great ironies of American history is that the same Pilgrims who fled Europe in search of religious freedom wasted no time upon arriving on the "new" continent in enforcing their own religious orthodoxy and persecuting deviants. It's hard to separate beliefs from the person who holds the beliefs. But while I believe my beliefs are better than others', as a person I am in no way superior to anyone else, even remotely, and I would steadfastly defend anyone's right to believe whatever he or she chooses.

But tolerance and apathy are different. One is a great virtue. The other is merely a lazy excuse for refusing to take a stand.