Tolerance

It is widely accepted that the freedom to practice one's religion, and to live according to one's religious beliefs, is a basic human right, and the key to peaceful coexistence among religious communities and among nations. In my paper I will focus on the problems that arise when sincerely held religious beliefs come into conflict with the rights of others. Recently in the United States, two such situations have received widespread attention. One case involves pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, because they believe that the use of certain kinds of contraception violates their Christian religious beliefs. The other case involves Muslim taxicab drivers who refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol for similar reasons. In response to such conflicts, religious tolerance is often embraced as a solution. In western society, the ideal of religious tolerance can be traced back at least to John Locke, and received considerable attention in the work of political philosopher John Rawls. In recent years, tolerance has been embraced as a public value through programs that teach tolerance in public schools. But the ideal of tolerance has also come under criticism from theorists such as Wendy Brown, professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley, and author of <em>Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire</em> (Princeton University Press).  Brown argues that tolerance is “an impoverished and impoverishing framework through which domestic, civil and international conflicts and events (are) formulated... The experience of being tolerated is inevitably one of being condescended to, of being forborne. The object of tolerance is constructed as marginal, inferior, other, outside the community, in some relation of enmity with the community.” Moreover, as the legal scholar Stanley Fish has noted, the doctrine of tolerance “legitimizes, and even demands, the exercise of <em>in</em>tolerance, when the objects of intolerance are persons who, because of their over-attachment to culture, are deemed incapable of being tolerant.”  What implications do these critiques of tolerance have for how we should address real-life cases of conflict between religious beliefs and the rights of others? “Obviously” as Wendy Brown points out, “it is always better to be tolerated than not, if those are the choices.” But I believe that there are possibilities that go beyond tolerance, that are based on dialogue. The importance of dialogue has been stressed by thinkers including Mohammed Khatami, and philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University, author of <em>Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers </em>(W.W. Norton).  I will argue that productive dialogue between different cultures, or even between different segments of a culturally diverse society, requires more than just reasoned argument. Rather, it requires a deeper conversation that develops an understanding of each other’s history and everyday life and strives for a level of mutual trust and respect. In my conclusion, I will discuss the ways in which this kind of dialogue between faiths can contribute to the cause of peace.

The deepest and most rooted form of racism can be found in the Bible which claims the superiority of a race as God's demand or divine destination. But this idea survived in modern philosophy by appeal to the different methods. In this paper I will introduce methods of justifying racism, most of which are in the philosophical context. Legal racism claims that some races have not enough reason to be members of civil society and enjoy their rights. Racism in its historical method, claims that the history of thought has shown that some races play a major role in the production of thought and this is a result of their superiority. In philosophical method, it is argued that some of the human capabilities in some species have not been activated and finally in scientific method, it is claimed that the superiority of one race in the struggle for survival is a scientific achievement of the scientific laws such as Evolution hypothesis.

Despite the scientific and technological progress seen in the human world today, we are witnessing the disproportionate growth of violence in human society. It is, thus, necessary to talk about tolerance in such a time. The purpose of this study is to examine tolerance within the framework of Sadra's philosophy. The theoretical foundations of tolerance in Transcendent Theosophy will be explained in four categories: epistemology, methodology, ontology, and anthropology. Though Sadra has been influenced by Aristotelian virtue ethics, he takes a step forward and analyzes tolerance from an ontological point of view, understanding it not as a merely moral virtue but as an ontological-existential perfection towards Godlikeness "ὁμοίωσις θεῷ" [homoiōsis theō] which is the very essence of wisdom. Tolerance and violence in Sadra’s philosophy constitute two pyramid-like structures reciprocally. The pyramid of tolerance has reason and justice at its pinnacle while on the top of the pyramid of violence lie ignorance and injustice. Thus, pro-tolerance behavior is resulted from a rational mindset and pro-violence behavior has its origin in ignorance and idiocy. Outcomes of tolerance are the increase of wisdom, social dignity, and influence on people while stagnation, social humility, and isolation result from violence. It is needless to say neither tolerance is always applauded nor violence is always despised. This is why one can speak of the wrath of God and His saints in a meaningful way. Rather it is because of the conditions and their relation with reason and ignorance that we can reach a judgment in this regard. The study is concluded by a reality-based account of Sadra's treatment of his opponents which is followed by an elaboration of his tolerance-centered approach.

As I delve into Imām Riḍā’s civilizational thought, exploring the concept of justice and its implications, I find myself drawn to the parallels between his teachings and those of Jesus Christ. Imām Riḍā’s legacy of justice for everyone and injustice for no one resonates deeply with the core teachings of Christianity, particularly as embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Both figures exemplify a profound commitment to mercy, compassion, and the pursuit of righteousness. One striking aspect of Imām Riḍā’s teachings is his emphasis on mercy for all believers, a principle that finds resonance in Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness. The example set by Imām Riḍā in praying for the prosperity of all believers reflects Jesus’ call to love one another and to pray even for our enemies. Moreover, Imām Riḍā’s respect for all individuals, regardless of their social status or background, mirrors Jesus’ interactions with people from all walks of life. Both figures demonstrate a deep reverence for the inherent dignity of every human being, challenging us to overcome prejudice and embrace the inherent worth of all individuals. The theme of caring for the needy is another point of convergence between Imām Riḍā and Jesus. Imām Riḍā’s choice to stay with the destitute during his travels and Jesus’ teachings on caring for the poor highlight the shared imperative to uplift the marginalized and alleviate suffering in our communities. Furthermore, both Imām Riḍā and Jesus exemplify affability toward others, emphasizing the importance of kindness, humility, and compassion in our interactions with one another. Their teachings remind us of the transformative power of love and the profound impact of acts of kindness on individuals and communities. Imām Riḍā’s emphasis on forgiving the faults of others echoes Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation. Both figures challenge us to overcome resentment and bitterness, extending grace and mercy to those who have wronged us. Additionally, Imām Riḍā and Jesus share a commitment to humane treatment of all people, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. Their teachings emphasize the importance of respecting human rights and promoting justice and equality for all members of society. Imām Riḍā’s civilizational thought offers valuable insights into the shared values that unite humanity across religious divides. As Christians and Muslims, we have much to learn from one another’s traditions, and through dialogue and cooperation, we can work together to build a more just, compassionate, and inclusive world.