Totalitarians vs. pluralists

Faithfully Liberal posted an interview with Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core. I hadn't heard of either Patel or his group before, so the interview provided a good introduction.

I particularly liked this distinction, from Patel. The "faith line," he says:

... does not separate Muslims from Christians, or Jews from Hindus, but rather religious totalitarians from pluralists. A religious totalitarian is someone who seeks to suffocate those who are different from them. ... A pluralist is someone who seeks to live with people who are different, be enriched by them, and peacefully coexist in the world together.

This talk of living with, of peacefully coexisting, and particularly of being "enriched by" people of other faiths and perspectives would not sit well with many of the fundamentalists in the church and school I attended as a child. Their response to such talk would be to recite a passage otherwise usually reserved for explaining why we shouldn't date infidels (I'll quote from the King James Version, because it's their favorite):

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

That's from 2 Corinthians 6, a passage that concludes with the motto of the Amish: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate."

The Amish take this a bit more extravagantly than most Christians do, but they also take this passage too seriously not to notice that it speaks of "coming out" and "being separate" -- not of conquest, domination and enforced hegemony. Paul does not say, "Wherefore, take ye back America."

The "separateness" Paul speaks of is to be characterized, he says in the same chapter, by "giving no offense in any thing," by "kindness" and by "love unfeigned." All of which sounds a great deal like Eboo Patel's desire for "peacefully coexisting." The very same characteristics Paul describes as separating "light from darkness" also characterize what separates religious pluralists from religious totalitarians.

Patel's description also applies, usually, to the sometimes boisterous pluralism I often see displayed here in the comment threads on theism/atheism and the like. Whatever our religious persuasion -- including, of course, the belief that religion is far from persuasive -- we can still manage to, as Patel says, "live with people who are different, be enriched by them, and peacefully coexist in the world together." We can do so, as Paul says, without giving offense, with kindness and unfeigned love. We can do so without having to pretend that we're all in the right, or that we do not disagree.*

It is possible to be a fervent (non)believer without desiring to "suffocate" those who disagree. Consider, for example, the group of rather conservative evangelicals that Michael Luo and Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times refers to as a "New Breed of Evangelicals." These are the same folks that Media Matters characterized as "less ideological religious leaders" in their recent study of "The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media." They didn't fit easily into the study's tally of media appearances of politically conservative and politically liberal religious leaders.

Here again Patel's distinction is useful. The conservative religious leaders tracked by Media Matters (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, Tony Perkins, etc.) are nearly all people who advocate what Patel would call religious totalitarianism. The progressive religious leaders tracked in the study (Jim Wallis, Michael Lerner, David Saperstein, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) are people who advocate pluralism. The so-called "new breed" types -- folks like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes -- tend to be very conservative, yet they do not advocate the religious totalitarianism that characterizes the rest of the religious right.

- - - - - - - - -

* About here, inevitably, someone will chime in with what they seem to think of as the trump card for the religious totalitarian perspective. Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!

Well, yeah. And also, duh. Antonyms are incompatible. Opposites are opposed. That's not a particularly noteworthy observation, so I've always been baffled as to why this bit of adolescent wordplay was regarded as meaningful.

Here again, though, I think Patel's terminology is helpful. Intolerance is, necessarily, totalitarian. So when I say I favor freedom -- whether freedom of conscience or of any other sort -- then, yes, what I'm really saying is that I'm all for freedom except for when it comes to people who want to impose totalitarianism. This exception does not, as the JV sophists would have it, negate the claim that "I'm all for freedom." It simply demonstrates that, unlike them, I'm aware of what words like "free" and "tolerant" -- and their opposites -- actually mean.

Comments

[ScottBot]

SCOTTBOT SAYS: Liberal pluralists are worse than totalitarians. This is just more of Fred's " 'Jesus thinks I'm so wonderful he died just to be used as a rhetorical bludgeon just to give me, wonderful, wonderful me, political power' belief system." All talk of morality is a mask for the will to power and confiscatory taxati

Cancel. Unsupported assertion error line 17. Restart?

(As you can see, we're still working the bugs out of the SCOTTBOT scripting program.)

[cjmr]

Why is it called Interfaith Youth Core, instead of Interfaith Youth Corps? I'm sure there's a good reason, but it looks illiterate to me.

[/prescriptivist mode]

[the opoponax]

Yeah, more references to The State, or the Government, or "you liberals".

[Mark]

I'm thinking this essay will be the only time one will ever hear the Amish described as "extravagant."

[Silus Grok]

Lovely post.

[Ian]

Mark, keep in mind that ostentatious humility is another way of showing off. In the words of Weird Al, "Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art."

Having said that, the plain dressing Mennonites I've met tend to dress humbly because they are humble.

[sophia8]

Mac Davis said it years before Weird Al: Oh Lord it's hard to be humble When you're perfect in every way

[J]

T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen all seem cut from more of a "Dr. Phil" or even Oprah cloth than anything else. They're apolitical because they don't want to scare off ANY potential book or T-shirt or weight-loss product buyers. (Heck, from time to time, even Pat Roberson seems to put on that hat). So yeah, they are a "New Breed", but it's a trend that portends only vapidity and marketing, not shining inter-religious dialogue and leadership.

[Raka]

so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!

My favorite treatment of this concept is David Brin's 'Dogma of Otherness'. He doesn't really go anywhere with it in the initial essay, but it's a fun illustration.

cjmr: Why is it called Interfaith Youth Core, instead of Interfaith Youth Corps?

The Interfaith Youth Core is the elite leadership element of Interfaith Youth, disseminating their missives through the initiated Interfaith Youth Mantle to the masses of the Interfaith Youth Crust.

[cjmr]

...with occasional eruptions of 'godly lava', no doubt...

[RandomReader]

About the tolerance/intolerance aside, here is one example of why intolerance of intolerance is a notable point for some people.

Consider three people. Person one is tolerant of everyone (intolerant towards 0% of people), person two is tolerant of everyone except black people (intolerant towards ~25% of people), and person three is tolerant of everyone except intolerant people (intolerant towards ~50% of people). Since there is a large difference between "tolerance" and "tolerance of everything except intolerance", people bring up this point. Perhaps it if you were to label yourself an intoleranticist, it would be more clear?

[LL]

RE "yoke" - wow, do the Southern Baptists love this word. They use it all the time, in all sorts of contexts (but usually in regards to marriage). For these and other likeminded people, "tolerance" and "compromise" are - seriously - among the worst words you can use. There can be no tolerance of evil or unrighteousness or whatever, they would say. You can't compromise with Satan/evil/sin or some such nonsense. This is why I rarely speak to them unless I have to. They are tiresome in the extreme.

RE "Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!" - my response to that is usually along the lines of "Yes, dumbass." I'm probably not as tolerant as Fred.

[Painini]

Silly language has tens of thousands of words, but some of them still aren't specific enough.

There is intolerance for people (and ingrained characteristics thereof) and intolerance for behaviours/beliefs indicated thereby - as demonstrated, but not pointed out, in RandomReader's comment. Of course, most of the former makes claims to the latter - Muslims are terrorists, or women are gold-diggers, or blacks are morally inferior - and the latter is very often mistaken for the former (ref: RR's 'intolerant people').

And I meant to wrap this up with something authoritative, but... can't. Oops.

[the opoponax]

@ randomreader: but what if everyone else is black? then the "tolerant of everyone except black" becomes 98% intolerant (or whatever). 25% intolerant is only valid if a quarter of all people in question are black. are you saying that it's ok to be racist as long as the people you hate are a minority, because that way you're "only" intolerant of 25% (or whatever small figure), whereas someone who is intolerant of bigots is way more intolerant in terms of the numbers of individuals she hates? because that's just completely backwards.

also, if you have 3 people, one tolerant, one intolerant, and one tolerant of everyone except the intolerant, the latter person is only 30% intolerant.

[nieciedo]

Who is worse: a racist who only hates black people or a misanthrope who hates all people regardless of race?

(This is a serious question, since I often find myself in that latter category).

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Oh, Gods. Brings to mind the patronizing, wide-eyed, smug face of the most recent person to say that to me. "I used to think like you did. Then I realized that being intolerant of intolerance made me just as intolerant." Implying that she had outgrown a phase I was still going through.

(The problematic verse of "Sweet Home Alabama" was the topic of conversation. I may have a naive and overly simplistic view of the song--i.e. "whether southern men are lynching black folks isn't your business, yankee, go home!"--which I accept is a debatable point, but this gal wasn't disagreeing with my interpretation of the song. She was denying the morality of opposing racism.)

[Jeff "Zeeba Neighba" Weskamp]

Patel has a good points there. Too many people in the world feel that if they encounter someone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, they must attempt to convert that person. And if that person is unresponsive to the Message, they are obligated to shun that person like the plague.

I read an interview with a Evangelical leader some years ago (I can't remember his name). He told the interviewer that the only way he could interact with a Hindu was to think of the Hindu as a Potential Future Christian. Otherwise, he would be sinning by associating with him. Personally, I think that's pretty sad.

[pecunium]

I'd say the intolerance of a subset is worse.

To be a misanthrope is an error, but it's not separating one group because of something irrelevant.

[Jeff]

Too many people in the world feel that if they encounter someone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, they must attempt to convert that person. And if that person is unresponsive to the Message, they are obligated to shun that person like the plague.

A friend's sister and brother-in-law are intolerant Fundy creeps. I might try to convert them to being a bit less creepy and intolerent, but if I can't, I prefer to avoid them (I can't shun them, as much as I might want to, them being "family", which is highly regarded).

[ako]

A friend's sister and brother-in-law are intolerant Fundy creeps. I might try to convert them to being a bit less creepy and intolerent, but if I can't, I prefer to avoid them (I can't shun them, as much as I might want to, them being "family", which is highly regarded).

There's a fair distinction between "I won't deal with them because they believe something I don't agree with," and "I won't doeal with them because they do something offensive, objectionable, or annoying, which they do because of their belief I dont' agree with." The latter's generally fairly justified, ther former, not so much.

And we've already covered tolerating intolerance. You don't have to. It's okay.

[Jeff]

ako: And we've already covered tolerating intolerance. You don't have to. It's okay.

Yay!

[J]

Randomreader has been drinking Jesurgislac Juice.

[Bugmaster]

Too many people in the world feel that if they encounter someone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, they must attempt to convert that person.

Well, for some of these people, it makes perfect logical as well as moral sense to do so. If you knew, down in the deepest recesses of your soul, that everyone who did not worship your particular God would suffer an eternity of fiery torment, and if you were a good person (as opposed to, say, an intolerant misanthrope), wouldn't you feel morally obligated to rescue as many people as possible from their fiery doom -- by converting them ?

Taking that one step further, if you found someone who not only actively resisted conversion, but also openly opposed your efforts to convert others (and thus rescue them from their fiery doom), would you have any other choice but to stop them by any means necessary -- because the alternative would be to condemn thousands of people to their fiery, un-converted doom ?

I'm not saying I agree with such beliefs; all I want is to point out that it's possible to be a good, decent, moral individual, and still embrace complete religious totalitarianism -- for the Greater Good.

[PepperjackCandy]

And if that person is unresponsive to the Message, they are obligated to shun that person like the plague.

Not in my experience. In my experience, they cling even more closely in hopes of finding way to convert the "poor deluded" person.

[Secco]

I can't shun them, as much as I might want to, them being "family", which is highly regarded

I have a similar problem with my grandparents on my father's side. My father was inspired by the episode of The Office where Dwight shuns Andy. He keeps running into situations where he has to talk to Andy, so he un-shuns him long enough for a short exchange, then re-shuns him, complete with hand motions to show the shunning process. Now whenever his parents start some rant (their current favorite is that my upcoming wedding somehow won't count because the priest is gay...) my father makes the shunning motion with his hands. He feels better for having actively distanced himself from them, and they don't get mad because they don't see or understand the gesture (Dad is slightly more subtle then Dwight in making his hand motions...) Latter he un-shuns so he can ask them to pass the salt or some such.

[RandomReader]

@Painini
Good point. My example would have been better if the second person was not a racist, but instead say a person who is intolerant of people who drive SUVs. (Is there a word for that?).

@BugMaster
I don't suppose you have classic Jesurgislac post? I looked up some of his more recent ones, but they did not seem immediately objectionable.

@Opoponax
Sorry, I should not have mixed racism up in this. For the record, I think racism is bad regardless of percentages. I guess I was just trying to say that there is a difference between pure, 100% tolerance and intolerantism, and that intolerantism is potentially intolerant of more people than some -isms that are generally thought of as intolerant. I don't think it is always bad to be intolerant, and if you want to be intolerant of religious totalitarianism, more power to you. The people mentioned in the post who bring out the trump of intolerantism, are saying (I think) that there is a conflict between this ideal of 100% pure tolerance and being intolerant of intolerant people. On reflection, that is what I should have commented on in the first place, since that is the heart of what bothered me about the aside.
Whew. Perhaps this would be a good time to apoligize for the minor derail.

[the opoponax]

"potentially intolerant of more people than some -isms that are generally thought of as intolerant."

but again, we don't figure out who's tolerant and who's intolerant based on how many individuals they tolerate or not. that's completely backwards. i mean, is it then ok to be antisemitic, because jews make up less than 5% of the US population? i mean, you're only intolerant of like 15 million people. whereas bigots probably make up close to a majority (i mean look at how close elections are, lately). which means that if you're anti-bigot, you are intolerant of more people than someone who's an antisemite is.

this is the gist of your argument.

you are an idiot.

[85% Duane]

Pot, meet thy kettle.

[Bugmaster]

I don't suppose you have classic Jesurgislac post? I looked up some of his more recent ones, but they did not seem immediately objectionable.

Just post something to the extent of, "I think men and women are biologically different", or "there are some social issues that are not related to sexism yet overshadow it in importance", or "a world run entirely by women would not necessarily be a good place to live in", or "I'm a man and I like it". Do that, and you're sure to get a large enough sample of Jesurgislac-juice for your analysis :-)

I should point out, though, that while I find Jesu's style occasionally abrasive, and several of her ideas completely wrong, I do respect the strength of her convictions and her persistence in defending her views. No bot can ever replace Jesurgislac, which is more than I can say for an average forum troll visitor.

[fe_man]

...and this is why I link to your blog from mine(ironforfun.blogspot.com).
I'm agnostic (formely christian). You're christian and you get it.
Thanks.

[mcc]

... does not separate Muslims from Christians, or Jews from Hindus, but rather religious totalitarians from pluralists. A religious totalitarian is someone who seeks to suffocate those who are different from them. ... A pluralist is someone who seeks to live with people who are different, be enriched by them, and peacefully coexist in the world together.

Oddly, this is almost the exact wording I'd tend to use to describe why I feel estranged from the "neo" atheists that have been tearing up the book charts lately.

[Jesurgislac]

Randomreader has been drinking Jesurgislac Juice.

Everyone should! Jesurgislac Juice is extremely tasty, refreshing, packed with vitamins and flavonoids, may prevent cancer and heart disease if used as part of a healthy diet, and inspires all to go forth and overthrow the Patriarchy!

[Scott]

Cancel. Unsupported assertion error line 17. Restart?

It's supported by the fact that just about every time Fred mentions 'Jesus' he ends with "and this is why people like me should have political power over every dollar you make or spend". After all, as an evangelical, Fred has a personal relationship w/ God, and thus knows how God wants us to vote on every topic (SS privatization, nationalized healthcare, estate taxes).

When will the religious left learn that to those who don't walk in already sharing their political beliefs, they sound just like the religious right does to them?

[Fred]

Scott --

You write, "to those who don't walk in already sharing their beliefs, they sound just like the religious right ..."

Fair enough, if you had just walked in. But you've been around here way to long to honestly be able to characterize me as advocating the imposition of theocracy. Did you even read the post above? Do you just assume that Patel's advocacy of pluralism is a disingenuous mask for a theocratic power grab, or is this a reading comprehension problem on your part? Or when you read the post above this, advocating the "clear and timely disclosure of the total cost" of rent-to-own transactions, what is it in your brain that translates "disclosure" into an attempt to seize "political power over every dollar you make or spend"? Because those aren't the same thing.

You've posted enough other stuff here -- some of it very funny -- that I know you're neither stupid nor dishonest enough to confuse disclosure and confiscation, so what's the deal? If not stupidity or deliberate malice, what makes you come back again and again to continue trying to force words that won't fit into other people's mouths? What is it that makes you -- over and over -- insist that when I write "up" I must really mean "down"?

Is it just an ideological filter thing? Have you become so certain -- all evidence to the contrary -- that anyone who appeals to the common good (me, Bono, James Madison) is secretly advocating Maoism that this is all you're able to see or hear? Because that's just sad.

Anyway, here endeth my quarterly effort to reason with you. Pointless, I know, since like the dog in the Far Side cartoon, all you'll probably take from this is "Arf, arf, arf, arf, arf, arf, arf, God, arf, arf, arf, arf, money, arf, arf, arf, arf, common good, arf, arf, arf, arf," and you'll reinterpret it, perversely, as saying what it does not say and meaning what it does not mean.

[Jeff]

Scottbot: "Tolerence for others (except bigots) is good" == "property is theft!!!!eleventy!!"

[Fraser]

•On conversion: There's an anecdote in Southern Cross (about early evangelical efforts in the South) about an evangelical who "saved" his Anglican brother, only to have brother revert while visiting parents, then catch fever and die. The evangelical's response was a blistering letter to his parents informing them that because they'd led the brother away from the true faith, they had condemned to Hell, whereas if he'd stayed saved, he'd now be dining at the right hand of Jesus.
I can understand the logic (and the grief) but I still want to bitch-slap him.
•On tolerance vs. intolerance: Any attempt to claim they're analogous is bullshit. Much as I despise the creepier right-wing Christian, I support the right to free speech and worship even of the Dominionists (as I'm pretty sure Fred does); many of them (in the Dominionist case, none of them) do not support mine. Ergo, tolerance is not a form of intolerance. Until the day we see Rainbow Coalition members kicking skinheads to death in the street and liberal suburbs "white lining" to keep conservatives from buying homes, this comparison will continue to be bullshit.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Point the first: I think possibly language is the problem. "Tolerance" cannot, technically, be the greatest good, because some things are not tolerable. The difference then is that the "tolerant" person defines harmful actions as intolerable, actions that spring from hate, bigotry, etc.; while the "intolerant" person defines harmless differences such as skin color, different ways of talking about God, languages spoken, and countries of origin as intolerable. Both people are intolerant of something, but I can respect the "tolerant" person's choice as to which something that might be.

So if "tolerant/intolerant" is linguistically inaccurate, what better terminology can we use? I'm tempted to say "unbigotted/bigotted" but I'm afraid that is, while accurate, inflammatory to the point of shutting down discussion. And throwing the word "morality" in there only muddies things given that it's a word upon whose definition the bigot and the unbigotted person will not agree. Where does the discussion go from here?

Point the second: I am vaguely disturbed by the idea of Jesurgislac Juice. How does one acquire one's daily 8 oz. glass? Is anyone else reminded of that one Freakazoid! episode? "If I don't get a phone line, lickety-split, I shall squeeze you, and I shall continue squeezing you, until all your man-juices run dry." Of course, I'm also reminded of the lyrics of a particularly nasty Cowboy Mouth song that suggest another method which I will not take upon myself to recommend or disrecommend.

[Bugmaster]

Be warned. Jesurgislac juice is PEOPLE ! It's PEOPLE !!!111!!!one!

[Bugmaster]

while the "intolerant" person defines harmless differences such as skin color, different ways of talking about God, languages spoken

In the interests of fairness, I should point out that, from the point of view of the "intolerant" (for lack of a better word) person, these differences are actively harmful. For example, a different way of talking about God -- a way that does not describe him as Jesus, but as Allah or Zeus or Krishna, for example -- is the kind of talk that actively seduces souls from the true path, and condemns them to an eternity of torture in Hell. Effectively, when you say, "I worship Aphrodite, and I'm pretty sure she's real", what they hear is, "I am doomed to burn in Hell, and I think you should be, too", followed optionally by, "Satan is my master, hssss". And who can tolerate a statement like that ?

[Fraser]

Astonishingly enough, Bugmaster, a lot of religious believers do actually tolerate people preaching what they consider false religious beliefs that will damn the believers to hell. Not like them, support them or keep their mouth shut about them, but tolerate them.

[Jesurgislac]

Be warned. Jesurgislac juice is PEOPLE ! It's PEOPLE !!!111!!!one!

That's a foul calumny. Probably for the movie version. It's actually made from a healthy mixture of soy and pulses.

[Bugmaster]

@Fraser:
Yes, I am aware of that. I'm just pointing out, again, that it's possible to have only the best of loving intentions at heart, and still be intolerant of others' beliefs; in fact, if your faith is very strong, this is practically a requirement. Of course, the next question is, how does the believer act on this intolerance ? Does he make speeches, does he intensify his preaching, or does he try to actively silence the people he's not tolerant of ?

[Jeff]

That's a foul calumny. Probably for the movie version. It's actually made from a healthy mixture of soy and pulses.

That's the Purple Jesurgislac Juice. Orange Jesurgislac Juice is made from Teh Bloode of Teh Patriarchy and Freakazoid "man-juice". I can't describe Green Jesurgislac Juice on a Safe-For-Work blog.

[jimp1947]

Look, you don't call someone who refuses to accept the bully's right to beat them up or the thief's right to steal from them "intolerant". When people demand that you accept the unacceptable, you can damn well be sure that they don't have your best interests in mind.

When one's "freedom" only comes at the cost of another's freedom or livelihood, or even their life, then that ceases to be "freedom" and becomes tyranny. So, yes, you are either intolerant of intolerance or you are a sheep ripe for the slaughter.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

For what it's worth, it wasn't Freakazoid's man-juices on the line in that episode. It was Gutierrez's lawyer who faced the prospect of dire squeezings.

Bugmaster, I'd like to answer you with "Yes, OK, then, 'tolerant' people then are those who find intolerable actions that can be considered harmful without resorting to worlds invisible and the authority of some alleged God." But obviously the 'intolerant' people in your hypothetical believe that spiritual harm is a bad bad thing regardless that it can't be materially proven. So I'm just going to take the easy way out and say, "Your hypothetical doesn't address racist bigotry, though, so there!"

It's not like I'm after convincing the 'intolerant' people to be more tolerant, anyway. My point remains: we need other words than 'tolerant' and 'intolerant,' but I don't know what better words to use.

[Bugmaster]

Your hypothetical doesn't address racist bigotry, though, so there

It does, unfortunately :-( For example, here in CA, many people believe that Mexicans are an innately dirty, violent, shifty, and otherwise nasty people. Therefore, kicking them out of the state is only reasonable, because it prevents them from hurting all the good, non-Mexican people that live here. Naturally, this racism is a kind of faith, which is difficult at best, impossible at worst, to sway with any kind of evidence -- just like religious faith in my example above.

I should also point out that my religious example is not hypothetical; I actually do know people who think like that.

I agree with you though, we need a better word, but I don't know what it might be, either.

[Jeff]

Bug, where in CA are you? I live in LA but come to San Diego often (that's where I'm posting from). E-mail me if you want to have a mini-Slactivista -- jhlipton [at] yahoo [dot] com

[ako]

It's supported by the fact that just about every time Fred mentions 'Jesus' he ends with "and this is why people like me should have political power over every dollar you make or spend".

Aw, Scott defending the ScottBot! That's...charmingly bizarre. I think this may earn Scott a shot at the title of Best Troll Ever.

[shannon]

I thought Jersurgilac(sp?) juice was tittermilk.

[Rosina]

I looked at this, wanted to comment, and then got sidetracked onto Rape and Refrigerators. But Fred's original post struck a chord with me: A pluralist is someone who seeks to live with people who are different, be enriched by them, and peacefully coexist in the world together.

And here's one for the home team: Patel's description also applies, usually, to the sometimes boisterous pluralism I often see displayed here in the comment threads on theism/atheism and the like. Whatever our religious persuasion -- including, of course, the belief that religion is far from persuasive -- we can still manage to, as Patel says, "live with people who are different, be enriched by them, and peacefully coexist in the world together." We can do so, as Paul says, without giving offense, with kindness and unfeigned love. We can do so without having to pretend that we're all in the right, or that we do not disagree.* The asterisk is not mine, though if it were I'd make it say "No hard feelings on this side - socks of sullenness are still folded together in the drawer."

What worries me first are Believers. They can preach ecumenicalism (which tidies up Christianity a bit), but others can feel left out. Sometimes the doctrine of your church allows you to see all men as travellers looking for the same goal, or you work it out as your personal heresy:

In Le Moribund (translated and changed into English as Seasons in the Sun, the dying singer has last words for the Priest: "We weren't always on the same side
We didn't always take the same path
But we were both looking for Heaven just the same"

Even within Christianity, there are difficulties. The Cardinals are throwing their weight around in the UK, threatening Catholic MPs with being refused communion if they support abortion. How do you get catholics higher arcs to join your pluralist group? They would do so only to find allies and turn on the rest of the pluralists who favour Choice.

But it is for the grass roots to show the top mitres what the score is, and like Christmas 1914 we of opposing faiths can meet on neutral ground and play soccer.

My selling point that we all worship God - since not one of our Gods (or pantheism) admits that there is another more powerful god, all these Gods much be one and same. Mankind has tried to receive messages through all the static of the Godhead, endlessly twiddling the dials, and picking up a few words, here and there. So each priesthood has a different set of stories, and a different (though rather consistent) set of laws, and a different idea of how gods behave. They are all so different, but no more reflect the One True God than Kevin Costner was a true representation of the legendary Robin Hood - or Patrick Bergan or Errol Flynn or Tony Robinson. All display some aspects, ignore other. You might hope, because of all the stories, that there was an original Robin Hood, but you wouldn't know which if any of them were closest. So, man attempts to nail down and describe the character, deeds and desires of God.

Some of the messages - the ones about child sacrifice, thumbscrews and pears, and arsenic in Flavoraid - are generally accepted as misguided. But we 'people of faith' could agree that there is a God, and we all believe in and worship different aspects of him. That is what "In my father's house are many mansions" means to me.

This is a question - does anyone know of a sect loosely Christian, around in the 17th century, that believed that a Christ was reborn in each generation, in various places round the globe? Some are reviled, some are killed some just disappear. Was this a real sect?

I'll go on to what worries me second - Atheists - tomorrow.