Winner of the Foundation Essay Prize
Religious Tolerance - A Myth?

According to The New Oxford Dictionary of English, a myth is a "widely held, but false idea." I intend to attempt to explain whether this is an appropriate term with which to label the contentious, age old issues associated with religious tolerance - or rather, lack of this.

In a society supposedly characterised by its liberal moral values and tolerance towards those from different ethnic and religious backgrounds, upon witnessing events such as the Omagh bombing and the burning of mosques and synagogues in France, one cannot help associating a sense of failure with the ideologies of the West. However, it is my belief that it would be sheer folly to imagine that the policies contributing to, and resulting from the political correctness which has arisen in the last few decades, could possibly abolish religious divides that have been present for centuries.

In the Bible, one reads of the polytheistic Egyptian victimisation of the Jews, and yet ultimately, it was the Jews’ intolerance of Jesus, a man who came both to revolutionise and enrich their faith, which led to the crucifixion of arguably the most important person ever to set foot upon the earth. Throughout the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Europeans sought to recover that which they believed to be their own Holy Land from the Muslims who were deemed to be heretics. More recently, we have seen the destruction of ancient Buddha monuments by the Taliban, increasing violence in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims, and the world-shattering events of September 11th, which have been viewed by many as a declaration of war by extremist Muslims upon the West with its doctrines contrary to those of the Islamic faith.

Whilst terrorism on such an extreme scale as that which brought down the World Trade Centre is mercifully rare, the fact that a few individuals are prepared to go to such lengths, and are able to cause so much devastation in the name of religion, is truly worrying. Nevertheless, one must not underestimate the misery involved in ongoing tensions, as evinced in Northern Ireland. Here, not only are innocent people of all ages traumatised by violence, but even apparently peaceful protests and verbal threats are responsible for ruining lives.

Despite this, in my opinion, many so-called "holy wars" are not initiated by religious, but by political motives. Over the ages, a large proportion of religion has become inextricably bound to politics and the State. In England, it is the monarch who is head of the Anglican Church, and many European countries have Catholic political parties in which, unsurprisingly, spin and propaganda play an influential role.

Furthermore, in the process of this politicisation, much of the true spiritual essence of religion has been lost. I therefore maintain that it is of vital importance to distinguish between the spiritual principles, and the political and dogmatic aspects of religion when considering the issue of religious tolerance.

One can state almost with certainty that more people have died as the consequence of religion than from any other cause. However, one could hardly conclude that excessive spirituality was to blame. If this were the case, then surely the existence of such strong divisions, not only between monotheistic religions, but also within individual religions, would not be possible. Roman Catholics and Protestants (and their numerous composite orders) all preside under the title of "Christians", and ultimately, they all derive their spiritual inspiration from the Holy Trinity. Yet regrettably, despite their most important commandment after worshipping God being that of loving their neighbour as themselves, one finds all too frequently that religious doctrines introduced by fallible members of the Church are adhered to at the expense of divine spirituality. At best this results in minor tensions; at worst it leads to war and mass destruction.

I am convinced that the human condition comprises the need to assemble into groups, and to classify others into numerous categories, amongst which religious persuasion often seems to predominate. Arrogance may also play an integral role in human behaviour, and somewhat paradoxically, it appears that it is these two attributes which both keep religions alive, whilst simultaneously fuelling the divisions between them.

Throughout the centuries, missionaries acting upon the conviction that their religion alone holds the key to salvation, have sought to convert others to their beliefs. Whilst they may have worked peacefully, many thousands have since been slaughtered, having joined religious groups antagonistic to the established religion of the country, with the resulting feuds continuing to this day. Nonetheless, both race and politics also initiate violence, and in the absence of religion, it is likely that other forms of identity and division would arise, such as those which can be seen in the tribal warfare which currently exists in Africa.

The above may portray a fairly dismal state of affairs, but I believe that fanaticism should not be allowed to conceal the fact that reaching an accommodation between those of different religions, and hence the development of a peaceful, tolerant multi-faith society, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Those of all faiths who place divine qualities such as justice and peace at the forefront of their ideologies can preside peacefully alongside one another. After September 11th, many Muslim leaders were prepared to set aside their differences and cooperate with Christians and Westerners in helping to reduce the possibility of future terrorism.

The majority of extreme religious factions arise in developing countries. As the standard of living rises and the threats against survival diminish, more moderate policies tend to be adopted. Thus it is in the interest of us all to aid less developed regions, thereby promoting stability in countries throughout the world. Whilst some may argue that a shift towards more permissive forms of religion would lead to an increase in immorality, murder is generally considered to be the ultimate sin against humanity, and with more widespread tolerance, is it not inevitable that the number of homicides would be reduced?

In conclusion, I consider that at present, religious tolerance may justifiably be deemed a myth. The purpose of religion is widely accepted to be the pathway to God and righteousness, but all too often, this objective turns out to be a false one, as people pursue their own ends at the expense of the rights of others. Nevertheless, I believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Overall, Jesus’ death on the cross was by far the most important event of all for Christians, providing inspiration and allowing for the complete forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and eternal life. If such good could come of what was essentially an event arising from religious intolerance, then surely there is hope for us all, the future is indeed bright, and religious tolerance which may currently be a myth, could well become a reality.

Naomi Mudie UVI