Don’t walk in front of me. I may not follow. Don’t walk behind me. I may not lead. Walk beside me. And just be my friend. ~ Albert Camus
I recently had an exchange of e-mails with Thomas W. Smith, chair of the humanities department at Villanova University about the controversy created by the intemperate remarks Pope Benedict XVI recently made about Muslims. I wrote him in response to his op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It is interesting to me that I have gotten responses via e-mail to all kinds of interesting people, usually with people I find who are thoughtful in their arguments even if I disagreed with them or agreed with them only in part.
Smith’s argument was that the pope’s choice of words was unfortunate but that he was arguing in favor of reason. The quote was from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by sword the faith he preached.” Mr. Smith said that this was a small part of his argument, essentially making the point that violence was wrong. As Smith said, “it is always wrong [for Christians] to spread the faith through violence, precisely because of what the Christian faith claims about God. The pope says that ‘violence is incompatible with the nature of God’ because acting against reason is contrary to God’s nature. God is reasonable, not willful or arbitrary.”
Smith then goes on to describe how reason is important in creating a just society and how those who are unreasonable and willful, many who are fundamentalists of various religions, create serious problems.
However, reason has fallen on hard times, according to Smith. The pope was trying to warn Christians about this. Smith said, “To abandon reason is to open us up to violence and so to the shredding of a decent common life. To hate reason is to hate human beings, for we are rational creatures.”
I wrote back saying that the most important issue is religious tolerance. And while I agreed in the importance of the use of reason in solving our problems, I was concerned that the pope’s words that seemed to condemn Islam as violent by its very nature. I reminded Mr. Smith of the history of Christian intolerance, especially in the 14th century that one might say that it too is a violent religion.
But in the final analysis, it is true that all of us, whether Christian, Muslim or other, need to make a commitment to reason. "However,” I said, “I believe that reason begins with humility, an understanding that each of our views of the Truth is just that
— our own idiosyncratic, limited, distorted view of the Truth, including the pope’s. Acknowledging that would go a long way to bringing reason back into the dialogue and hopefully help create a groundswell of support for religious tolerance.”
Mr. Smith wrote back a gracious letter agreeing with my argument that religious tolerance is the central issue and the importance of humility. He still claimed the pope did not single out Islam. He also said he wished he had not used it and that the pope probably did too.
I appreciated Mr. Smith’s reply. It is good to know that he took my words seriously. In a sense, I was arguing from a Unitarian Universalist point of view. I know that it is hard to pin down what our religion is all about, which puts us at a disadvantage with other religions. But speaking for myself, I believe that the core principle of Unitarian Universalism is religious tolerance. From that principle flows all others.
I thoroughly enjoyed my dialogue with Mr. Smith. I suspect that we will not have another dialogue any time soon, if ever. And while we may disagree on the particulars, I am heartened to know that there is a kindred spirit who shares my commitment to the goal of religious tolerance, which is the way to world peace, indeed to the survival of our earth.
~Harold Beu