Well, here is a little anecdote. I’m a man who takes his faith very seriously;
I believe it is the Truth and that God should be at the center of one’s
life. I also know a man who is Jewish
and believes just the same. He is
orthodox, praying at the appointed times every day – regardless of the
situation – and abiding by every one of the 613 Judaic laws that pertain to his
life. He is a very saintly, gentle
man. And he also has expressed that his
faith – not mine, needless to say – is the true one. Now, if I found out that he had prayed for my
conversion to what he considers a superior faith, should I be offended?
In fact, neither his perspective nor such a desire
would bother me a whit. While this may
strike a Richard Dawkins type as strange, understand my position vis-à-vis his
attitude: I’d expect nothing less. And
anything else would truly be less, as
the only thing a belief in the equality of all faiths would tell me is that his
faith was lacking.
Let us examine this logically. Why would I sacrifice for my faith, tolerate
its demands to tame the flesh and govern my life with its teachings if I didn’t
believe it was the Truth (with a capital “T”)? If I subscribed to the fiction of religious equivalence (a relativistic
idea) – if I, in other words, believed it was just a matter of taste as with
ice cream – why would I choose a cross? I’d be a hedonist.
Now we move to the next step. If I believed something was the Truth – that
divine quantity that frees souls, dispels falsehoods, thwarts evil designs and
brings happiness – why would I not want my fellow man to benefit from it? Thus, why would it surprise anyone if I
prayed for his conversion?
So understand that when others pray for our conversion
it is often an outgrowth of love, a function of that common human desire to
have others enjoy what we believe is beneficial. In fact, what should give us pause for
thought is when such people would not thus pray. After all, what do we usually think of those
who possess something they consider great and don’t want to share it?
Such a desire also is not usual. Imagine you knew of a health regimen that
yielded weight loss without hunger pangs, vibrancy and longer life. Wouldn’t you want to spread the word? Might you not passionately say, “Hey, you
just have to try this; it’ll make you a new man!”?
In reality, whether religious or not, most people seek
converts all the time. Political parties
and groups spend time and treasure trying to convert us to their ideology; self-help
gurus and instructors of all stripes peddle their techniques, theories or
methods; and businesses try to sell us on the superiority of what they
offer. Whatever the case, the message is
the same: Believe what we say, follow our prescription, because what we provide
is the best and will improve your life. It is proselytization.
Thus, if people would feel zealous about sharing a
health regimen, why would we expect any less with respect to what they believe
heals not just the body, but the soul? Sure, we may demand they not beat us over the head; we may demand they
be civil. But it’s unreasonable to expect
that their natural desire to share will be left at the door of the worldly
realm.
I, of course, have had experiences with those who
tried to convert me. I’ve sometimes
registered a Mona Lisa smile, or thought, “They don’t know me very well,” but I’ve
never gotten upset. Would I be offended
if I learned they had prayed for such a change? Of course not. Truth be known,
unless we’ve raised someone’s ire and he is relishing some fantasy involving
our demise, most people don’t pay us much mind at all. Thus, if I knew someone had actually taken
the time to pray that I should receive what he views as the greatest gift in
the Universe, I’d be touched that he cared. That is love.
I would be remiss if I didn’t treat an important
related matter. In our secular age, many
have been conditioned to fear talk of religious conversion; it conjures up
images of invading hordes or the Islamists’ sword. In fact, if we believe the Christopher
Hitchenses of the world, such religious ambitions are responsible for most of
the evil throughout history (of course, what eludes them is that if there is no
God, there can be no “evil,” only personal or collective dislikes). This is nonsense.
Religious belief is not a prerequisite for a desire to
force your ways on others, only belief. Imposition of will doesn’t require that it be God’s, only that it be a
will. Mao Tse-tung, who could not be
confused with a prelate, was fond of saying that “Power comes from the barrel
of a gun.” And he and his fellow
travelers practiced what they preached, fomenting unrest, launching military
campaigns, instituting “re-education camps” to cure “heretics” and, ultimately,
murdering 100 million people during the 20th century. Their devotion to their godless creed was
thorough, and they would stop at nothing to make the world thoroughly
godless. If it makes you feel any
better, however, they never prayed for anyone’s conversion. Communist leaders wanted everyone to pray to
them.
Then there is the fear expressed by Charlotte Knobloch,
that, to put it in general terms, implying that a group’s characteristic
beliefs are lacking could provoke persecution. While it certainly could, a
little more philosophical understanding is in order.
First, again note that this danger isn’t unique to the
“religious” realm. I mentioned the
communists’ re-education camps and their penchant for killing dissenters, but
they singled out groups on other bases as well. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia persecuted people with eyeglasses and Joseph
Stalin murdered great numbers of Jews. Then there is the Nazi Holocaust. And, on a smaller scale, I recently read a story about a man who killed
another during a political argument.
In light of this, would we say that people shouldn’t
proclaim or even imply that one ideology, or even idea, is better than
another? Not only is this impossible,
but it would squelch the search for Truth. You see, this world poses many questions, and many claim to have the
answers – thereby imputing superiority to their ideas – and guess what? Some of them must be correct. And we will only find out who they are when
they can air their beliefs and we can scrutinize them.
Besides, as age-old ethnic battles prove, an easily
identifiable set of beliefs is unnecessary for persecution. Whether it’s the slaughter of the Tutsis in
Ruanda, the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the Armenian genocide or the
recent strife in Kenya, man has never needed dogma to justify destruction. But something else is also true: He does need dogma to forestall it.
This brings us back to the kind of people who are
offended by religious proselytization. What do you suppose is their nature? Sure, some are callow religionists whose grasp of faith is superficial
and who react like children, but, relatively speaking, that isn’t common in the
West. No, the typical person of this
persuasion is very different. He extols
a certain unwritten secular code of decency, one that goes something like this:
“I won’t say my beliefs are superior to yours if you
don’t say yours are superior to mine, deal? After all, if we will just agree with the opinion that Truth doesn’t
exist and that truth is opinion – that it’s all relative – we will get along. We shall just say that all perspectives are
equal and live happily ever after.”
Consequently, while religionists might expect a person
of faith to believe that he grasps a Truth they don’t, the secularist in
question views such a belief as the most offensive impertinence, a violation of
the rules of civilized society.
There is an obvious contradiction here, in that if all
ideas are equal, a position of religious equivalence cannot be superior to one
of religious chauvinism. Thus,
secularists’ call to the former not only renders them guilty of the very
arrogance of belief they accuse religionists of, it is also illogical. Even more to the point here, it is dangerous.
If people en masse were to answer this call and
descend into the confusion of moral relativism, they certainly would have no
perceived divine command to do evil. They also would have no reason not to. Logically, they could not launch wars, persecute infidels, or root out
heretics in the name of God, but they also could not logically say that doing
those things is wrong, not for that reason, a different one, or no reason. Logically, it wouldn’t be wrong to be
illogical.
Of course, there is every reason to fear
misconceptions about the Truth. It poses
a grave danger when people believe they have been enjoined to spread their
beliefs by the sword, for instance. Yet,
whatever a religionist’s moral compass, it exists. He may violate his fellow man insofar as he
has fallen victim to misconceptions, but he will seldom be as dangerous as one
who, at bottom, cannot believe in misconceptions or correct conceptions, but
only perception. As serial killer and
cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer told his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why
can’t I make up my own rules?” Dogma
isn’t an impediment to peaceful coexistence, but a prerequisite for it. That is, the correct dogma.
So we have nothing to fear from those who pray for our
conversion. For one thing, I tend to
think the people who are praying for you are not those praying against you or
who would prey on you. Second, if they
are wrong and you know the Truth, God won’t try to change your heart. If your conception Truth is flawed, then
their prayers are in order. And if you
think them impertinent because you don’t believe in Truth, perhaps you might
ponder a pearl of wisdom from G.K. Chesterton:
“They call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma, who is a
thinker, and has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.”
Protected by Copyright
By Selwyn Duke
Comments