Comments on Professor Mendus' 'Religious Toleration in an Age of Terrorism'

In her First Lecture (published by The Herbert and Valmae Freilich Foundation, Research School of Humanities, ANU College of Arts & Humanities, The Australian National University, 2008), Professor Susan Mendus concludes that '...where religious conviction has a salvationist character, it will often be very difficult to justify toleration...'. The reason is that '...for most salvationist religious believers life everlasting does not depend on leading one's life according to one's own beliefs, it depends on leading one's life according to the correct beliefs - beliefs that are pleasing to God' (p. 15).
The case of Islam is to be studied yet. This seems to be her main interest. Yet her generic statement, though probably true for the seventeeth century, does not necessarily holds true for at least some of the 'salvationist' religions today, if their doctrine is attended to. At least the case of Christianity invites to reflection. Catholic Christianity, for example, is 'salvationist' inasmuch as it pretends to know the way to salvation (see
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html, accessed 20 January 2009). Yet it does not preach this in a way that leads to intolerance. It even foresees the possibility of salvation for people who do not know the Gospel 'in ways known to [God] himself' (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm, accessed 20 January 2009). At any rate, and at least according to its current doctrine, it doesn't seem to invite its faithful to attitudes of intolerance.

Professor Mendus affirms that '...for most salvationist religious believers life everlasting does not depend on leading one's life according to one's own beliefs, it depends on leading one's life according to the correct beliefs - beliefs that are pleasing to God'. And yet again, in Christianity that might not be exactly true. (Catholic) Christians actually place salvation precisely in each person following their own conscience, and they go as far as pretending that a person's conscience is their most secret core, where they are alone with God and can hear his voice (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1776, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#I, accessed 20 January 2009). In fact, every person 'has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions', and must not be forced to act contrary to their conscience, especially in religious matters (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1782, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#I, accessed 20 January 2009). The most obvious implication is not only that Christians should not force anyone to act against their conscience, but that they themselves cannot be forced even by their own Church to act in the same fashion. So if by 'one's own beliefs' Professor Mendus means what a person believes in conscience (in other words, truly, sincerely) to be right, then in the case of Christianity the person is indeed expected to act according to their own beliefs (conscience), which their Church, their Scripture and/or their tradition only help to enlighten.

There is a recent document ('Final Statement of Catholic - Muslim Forum http://www.zenit.org/article-24175?l=english, accessed 21 January 2009) appeared in November 2008, where two typically 'salvationist' religions - Christian Catholics and Muslims - declare several points that regard tolerance in a very specific way. Among other things, they state in paragraph number 6: 'Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule.' Paragraph 9 says: 'We recognize that God's creation in its plurality of cultures, civilizations, languages and peoples is a source of richness and should therefore never become a cause of tension and conflict.' Paragraph 11 declares: 'We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.' And Paragraph 13 makes clear that 'Young people are the future of religious communities and of societies as a whole. Increasingly, they will be living in multicultural and multireligious societies. It is essential that they be well formed in their own religious traditions and well informed about other cultures and religions.'

It would seem, from those references issued by respective authorities in the Christian and Muslim world, that the salvationist character of a religion does not necessarily imply intolerance. This is not the same as saying that there have not been terrorist atacks whose perpetrators claim to be religiously motivated. It only says that the salvationist character of such a religion cannot be blamed for the terrorist actions. In a similar way, if the fans of a football team brake windows and cause disturbance in a city in which their team lost, few people would affirm that a clear consequence of playing (or watching) football is breaking windows. People can perform terrorist acts pretending to be practicing a religion. But that does not necessarily mean that the religion in question teaches that.