Intolerance of Religious Intolerance

Hindu news reports that an Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox church has called Krishna some bad things.  Echoing the Apostle Paul's admonition

Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.
- 1 Cor 10:20

the Archbishop said

"[Krishna is] an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God, and a livid lascivious youth..."

The Archbishop further requested the Mayor to ban construction of the proposed Krishna temple in Moscow saying it would otherwise become "an idolatrous disgrace erected for the glory of wicked and malicious 'god' Krishna". "Construction of the temple (a satanic obscenity destined to be built right in the heart of the Orthodox Christian country of Russia) to Krishna offends our religious feelings and insults the thousand-year religious culture of Russia where the overwhelming majority of people, Christians and Muslims including, consider Krishna an evil demon, the personified power of hell opposing God"

What's really interesting is the very "open-minded" liberal response of the Hindus

Aside from displaying stunning ignorance of the world's oldest religion, it is also evident from the statement that the Russian Orthodox Church is still embedded in the dark ages of religious exclusivity, which has no place in today's increasingly pluralistic society.

Their interesting claim at being the oldest religion is dubious, but more importantly, it's interesting that they repeat what I consider to be a liberal canard, that religious exclusivity is mark of "dark ages" theology.  Such a blunt and inexact statement is a nice way to broadbrush everyone else who does't agree with the anti-intellectualist sycnchretist world view.  The deception in this accusation is that it lumps together fanatics, who are usually exclusivists, and usually violently so, with those who believe that it is intellectually reasonable that not all religions can be right, and perhaps theirs is.

I do think the Krishna folks have a right to build their temple (freedom of association), just as Christians have a right to call Krishna a demon (freedom of speech).  But the Xians don't have the right to use political pressure to suppress the Krishna religion.  Bad.

Comments

[Stewart]

Seeker, you should know better than to conflate the ideas of something being "a right", and of it being acceptable behavior.

I have a right to call you an idiot, to tell you that your family is full of drunks, to suggest that your mother was a whore, that your father was sleeping around on her, and that you're executing the will of the devil by posting your worthless trash on the Internet. I have a right to say those things, even if I don't believe them, which I don't. But if I did, and I wanted to, it would still be totally unacceptable behavior.

Just like telling Hindus that Krishna, who they believe is a force of great good in the world, is actually a demon who's subverting goodness throughout the world. Or -- if that example isn't close enough to your heart -- telling gay people that their love is a sin, and suggesting that they're unfit to be parents. Nevermind, you probably can't see the connection. That kind of behavior is only defensible if you're trying to make a statement about rights, which is important, but it's not defensible if you're talking about being a decent human being.

It's great that you think the Christians in question shouldn't politically restrict these Hindu's religious beliefs, but maybe you could go that tiny extra step and ask that they act more like reasonable people than like fundamentalist antagonists.

[seeker]

Actually, your right to insult me is limited at slander. And calling somone's god a demon might be meant as an insult, or merely as an actual claim at fact, indepenent of insult.

You are right, it is not right to intend harm and namecall (since I call that hate in my oft referred to What is Hate?), but I don't think that we can limit the preaching of morality (right and wrong), we merely need to distinguish between BAD criticism (namecalling, intent to insult or incite violence), and disagreement over claimed facts.

Whether or not someone is insulted is secondary to the intent AND manner in which information is communicated. I should be considerate, perhaps even couch my words in grace, but not hold back on a moral opinion, because someone is always offended by disagreement. I believe the same Apostle Paul who said that other gods are actually demons also told Christians to treat other people with humility and gentleness, "beseeching" them (begging) them to turn from sin to God.

We should be careful (which I am not, but learning), that it is OK if people are offended by the truth, but not if they are offended by our delivery of our "truth."

BTW, I never said that gays were unfit to be parents. What I said was that family structures other than hetero, be they gay or single parent (for example), are inferior to the ideal, which is hetero, and we should not promote these others as normative. I also said that I believe the Christian philosophy of parenting (which is not monolithic) to be superior to others because it is based on truth and love, not one or the other, and is therefore superior to other philosophies. That does not mean that other philosophies are inept or inadequate - in fact, the truth is, the idea of "christian parenting" has been significantly augmented by psychology (that is not inconsistent w/ scripture) and other non-theological endeavors of science.

I also admit that a loving gay home is certainly superior to an unloving non-gay home. I am actually wishy-washy on gay adoption, and lean towards letting it be, since so many kids need love.

[Lorna]

off topic but wondering if you could point me to your review of brokenness. The anticpation text was great, but I can't find the review proper. thanks

[seeker]

Sorry, Lorna, haven't reviewed Brokenness yet. I will get ot it! Holidays and all.