Across our country, people are loudly protesting the presence and construction of Islamic mosques. This latest expression of American hysteria was set off by news that a two-story Islamic cultural center would be built blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City. Bloggers have managed to parlay that controversy into a more general protest of the religion of Islam in places like Temecula, California, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Protesters argue that Islam is not protected by the First Amendment because it is not a religion but rather, in the words of one protestor, “a political government that is 100% opposed to the Constitution.” A group begun by Christian evangelist John Hagee maintains that Islamic mosques are not places of worship but centers for plotting war and storing ammunition. The myth being propagated virally is that Muslims aim to take over America by immigrating here, having lots of children, getting themselves elected to Congress, and replacing the Constitution with Shariah Law (the rules governing the practice of Islam).
These popular protests are far afield from the original controversy over the Islamic cultural center in New York. The issue there, framed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, is that building a religious facility so close to the site of the tragedy of 9/11 is insensitive, much the way the construction of a Christian Carmelite convent next to Auschwitz was insensitive in an earlier generation. I do not accept the ADL’s logic, but it makes more sense to me than the wild, irresponsible accusations being made against the entire religion of Islam in other parts of the country.
But then, I really should not be surprised at sweeping generalizations about Islam. After all, for most of my life I have confronted people who make sweeping generalizations about Christianity. This includes the rigid believers who insist that their uncharitable, highly exclusive interpretation of Christianity is the only true version of the faith. It also includes intellectual elites who dismiss all Christianity as inherently oppressive and destructive of non-Christian cultures and belief systems. In the words of one philosophy professor who resented my presence at a symposium on pluralism, “Christianity has proven itself to be disrespectful of all other points of view, and is responsible for war, genocide, and the wholesale plundering of non-European cultures.”
It is obvious to me that none of the major world religions, precisely because they have transcended cultural boundaries, can be painted with broad brushstrokes. Even within Christian denominations, there are varieties of interpretations of the Scriptures and how to apply them to life. Why wouldn’t the same be true of Islam? In fact, Islam has shown itself to be quite malleable as it has moved into different cultures. Today, close to 90% of Muslims worldwide believe that Jihad (“Holy War”) refers to an internal spiritual struggle and has nothing to do with the earthly weapons of war. The leaders of those schools of Islam that promote peace and eschew violence are not twisting the Koran but illuminating what they believe to be the core teachings of their faith. (It is worth noting that most major religions include some form of Holy War that is misinterpreted to justify violence. Take Christianity, for instance, whose scripture tells us to “put on the whole armor of God.” Inspired by such language, Medieval Christian leaders commenced the Crusades, and recent fringe Christian groups have stockpiled weapons and bombed abortion clinics.) The anti-mosque protesters are holding all of Islam responsible for the worst, most violent, and least accepted element of that religion. This makes no more sense than holding all of Christianity responsible for right-wing militias.
Nuanced thinking, however, does not inspire popular protest. To believe that religions can co-exist peacefully and still maintain their integrity requires us to overcome the base suspicion that all those who are different from us pose a threat to us. This kind of thinking casts all religion in simple terms. For instance, two religions that do not believe the same thing cannot both be right. Only one can be right. The right religion is true in all respects, while every other religion is completely false. Therefore, the one true religion is perfectly justified in seeking the elimination of all other religions. Extremists within every religion believe they belong to the one true faith. They also believe that every other religion regards itself in the same way – as the one true faith – so we’re all engaged in a fight to the death.
It isn’t only religious extremists who are guilty of over-simplification. Many religious pluralists blandly claim that all religions are equally true because they all represent paths to the same God. Similarly, anti-religious people say that all religions, because they all believe they are right, are in fact all wrong, and that the world would be better off without them. All such generalizations breed misunderstanding. It’s just not that simple, which is why adherents of different religions need to talk to each other.
I do not believe that all religion is inherently exclusive. I also do not believe that all religions are equally true. Nor do I believe that any religion contains all truth. Instead, I believe, as C.S. Lewis did, that many religions contain at least some truth, and all of them are capable of distorting truth. Above all, I believe that God was perfectly and fully revealed in Christ, but I hasten to add that every form of the Christian religion, including the one I affiliate with, is an imperfect effort to appropriate the truth of Christ, who stands above the Christian church. Christ was sharply critical of the excesses of human religion. Therefore, as a follower of Christ, I hold my religious beliefs with humility. The forms of my Christian worship are means toward encountering Christ, not ends in themselves. And because Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), not Christianity, who is to say that the spirit of Christ may not also be at work in other religious traditions?
The leaders of the Muslim community who hope to build a community center in New York say they want to promote greater understanding among different faiths. They condemn violence in all forms. Why, as a Christian, would I begrudge their efforts? Why would I not welcome the opportunity to dialogue honestly with them from my faith perspective? The “threat” of doing so is not that I will become a Muslim but that I will become a better Christian.
Copyright 2010 by J. Mark Lawson
Comments