{"id":3655,"date":"2015-03-12T10:12:24","date_gmt":"2015-03-12T18:12:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pacificasv.org\/?p=3655"},"modified":"2016-09-12T20:20:28","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T03:20:28","slug":"text-of-rev-andrew-killes-speech-at-pacifica-institute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pacificainstitute.org\/bay-area\/2015\/03\/12\/text-of-rev-andrew-killes-speech-at-pacifica-institute\/","title":{"rendered":"Full Text of Rev. Andrew Kille’s Speech at Pacifica Institute"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tolerance, Respect, and Pluralism: Changing Relationships in a \u201cMulti-\u201c World<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"rev_kille\"Rev. D. Andrew Kille, Ph.D.<\/p>\n

Pacifica Institute<\/p>\n

March 4, 2015<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tolerance of those whose beliefs, practices, or customs differ from one\u2019s own is a minimum requirement for living in the contemporary world, as it becomes increasingly multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and multi-you-name-it. What might be necessary to move beyond tolerance to mutual respect, and how might that move change our understandings of community in a pluralistic context?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I am often struck by how different my world is now than when I was younger. I grew up in a small town, where religious dialogue meant little more than the Baptists were willing to talk to the Methodists. I knew there were Catholics and Jews, and maybe even Buddhists and Hindus, but never imagined that there might be Jains and Zoroastrians, Wiccans or Gnostics.<\/p>\n

There was a joke told when I was young about a man who died and went to heaven. St. Peter met him at the gate, and was showing him all the wonders of heaven\u2014the lovely mansions, the wide lawns. At one point in the tour, however, St. Peter said, \u201cShhh! Be quiet here,\u201d and they tiptoed down the hall past the room with a closed door.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat was that about?\u201d said the man.<\/p>\n

St. Peter replied, \u201cOh, that was (and I will use my own community here, though it could be anyone) the Baptists. They think they\u2019re the only ones here.\u201d<\/p>\n

There was a time long ago, perhaps even when we were young, that we could pretend that we were the only ones here. But in our modern world where communication and news, and even people can travel quickly from place to place, we are more and more likely to encounter those who are truly different from us. We have moved from small villages to larger towns to cities and regions and now share global connections, and none of us can now pretend that we are the only ones here.<\/p>\n

Sociologists tell us that our capacity for close relationship is limited. They suggest that the human brain can only handle a limited number of close relationships. That number, known as Dunbar\u2019s number is estimated to be between 100 and 250 people. Beyond that, personal relationship is not enough to hold a group together; they begin to develop institutions, rules, laws, and enforcement to manage the connections.<\/p>\n

We thus move into the arena of what sociologist Benedict Anderson called \u201cimagined communities.\u201d An imagined community is different from an actual community because it is not (and, for practical reasons, cannot be) based on everyday face-to-face interaction between its members. A nation is a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.<\/p>\n

At some level, we understand that. For example\u2014where is Silicon Valley? Is it a geographic location, a cluster of technologies, a state of mind? The other day, from the window of the ING offices on the ninth floor, I was able to see from the East Foothills to the Almaden area to the Santa Cruz Mountains. I consider this my community. But I realize I will never know all of the people here; I will not meet most of them. We do not all share the same interests, or stories, or hopes for the future. So what does it mean to be a part of the Silicon Valley Community?<\/p>\n

Within that larger reality, we develop smaller \u201cvillages.\u201d Faced with unimaginable diversity, we move toward group identity on a smaller scale\u2014developing ways of knowing who is in and who is out; who can be trusted and who should be mistrusted. Sadly, group identity is often formed in opposition to \u201cthe other.\u201d<\/p>\n

The story is told of a Jewish man who was stranded on a desert island for many years. When a ship finally came to rescue him, he told the rescuers, \u201cBefore we go there is something I want to show you.\u201d He took them to one end of the island and showed them a complex of buildings built out of the native trees and stone. It included a synagogue, a school, and other buildings.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s my synagogue,\u201d he said proudly. Then he led them to the other side of the island where again there was a group of buildings\u2014another synagogue, another school, and more.<\/p>\n

He announced, \u201cThat\u2019s the synagogue I don\u2019t<\/em> go to.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this increasingly globalized world, where we can know what is happening far beyond the limits of our eyesight and are bombarded with images, ideas, and challenges day in and day out, how are we to deal with the encounter with those who are different?<\/p>\n

One option is to attempt to ignore the other. We pretend they are not there, or that they are not really different. This was much more possible in a world limited to a village group or clan. There might be differences out there, but we are careful to avoid pointing them out or engaging those who are different. Or we may simply refuse to allow those differences into our world.<\/p>\n

A second option is to do battle with the other, to try to convince, convert, or coerce them into agreement or, in the worst case, to remove them from \u201cour\u201d community, perhaps even eliminate them out of the world altogether. We can try to exclude people who will not assimilate to our way of seeing things.<\/p>\n

A third option that was popular for years was to tolerate the other. \u201cTolerance\u201d is often the word invoked when people talk about attitudes toward others who might not share their beliefs or perspectives. Tolerance is a minimum requirement, if it at least means not attacking the other, but it is a weak kind of relationship.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Rev. Cody Saunders points out: \u201cTolerance says, \u2018You shouldn\u2019t be here, but I\u2019ll allow you to exist.\u2019 We commit ourselves to overlooking<\/em> the offense, the annoyance, the violation to our senses caused by the things and people we merely tolerate<\/em>. Indeed, toleration is no gift to the tolerated.\u201d[i]<\/a> Rajiv Malhotra writes in the Huffington Post<\/em>: \u201cTolerance was a political \u201cdeal\u201d arranged between enemies to quell the violence (a kind of cease-fire) without yielding any ground. Since it was not based on genuine respect for difference, it inevitably broke down. . .\u201d[ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"rev_kille3\"Tolerance is a step toward healthier relationships, but it does not go far. Gustav Niebuhr, in his book. Beyond Tolerance<\/em>, writes: \u201cTolerance is not enough because there\u2019s no educational component to it. Tolerance doesn\u2019t bust down stereotypes. Tolerance doesn\u2019t put a face on faith.\u201d[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

So how might we \u201cput a face on faith\u201d? More and more, people engaged in interfaith relationship-building are turning to the language of \u201cpluralism\u201d to describe the goal. Unlike tolerance, which is really a form of withdrawing from relationship (I promise not to react badly to you), pluralism is a call to engage in relationship.<\/p>\n

Pluralism is sometimes used as a synonym for diversity, but in fact, they are different realities. Diversity in this time and place is a given. We come from different backgrounds, different cultures, different religious traditions, different places. We are<\/em> diverse. Diversity is a fact of life. Diversity does not ensure positive relationships among the people and groups that make up the diverse community. We see many examples of people who are threatened by diversity. They know we are a diverse culture, and they hate it. They strike out against differences, seek to limit the rights of others, and declare that those who are different from them are \u201cnot American.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pluralism is a commitment to engage one another to build a society in with our diversity is appreciated, respected, and mobilized for the good of all. It is active and intentional, not merely resigned to how things are.<\/p>\n

The Pluralism Project at Harvard University suggests a few characteristics about pluralism:<\/p>\n