MODERN TOLERANCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15856, 30 August 1913, Page 10

MODERN TOLERANCE.

By Constance Clyde.

There is a. great desire just now for tolerance in maitas religious, and there ie also manifest in Uie public uiiad a proudly tiumuie conviction tnat we really are be!iiinmg to sutne in that respect Our very leciaraGions to the conirary, our loud shoutings to rise out of the war of creeds and HdKo sectarianism from off us, wo inatinoiveiy teei to be a proof that we are imiroving. Not all of us perceive that if we iso into tolerance merely by shaking off iur diil'erent creeds we miss toleranee hrougrt ceasing to have anything to be oleiaut about If cone of us belongs to inythiug 60 abhorrent as-a sect, or ovraa mything 60 absurd as a dogma, it is aoS nuch credit to us tliat we do not compel ithers to do that which wo leave undono.Now, this sort of cowardly evasion is be« oming rather common just now. We are ouquering seasickness by never going to ea, and escaping cowardice by rctusing' to inlist. In tho spiritual world we are cerainly no adventurers, no brave explorers. The truly tolerant man is, of course, ha rho, holding his creed' to be in some sense ir other the only true one, yet would not lo the smallest wrong to turn the whole, vorld to it. To attain this is a great ichievement. Does it follow !that if. we reuse to attempt this height, if we "meet me another half way," as is the modern uphemifim for giving up one's own opinion ntirely, real tolerance will result? Our vill-power in this, as in other things, weakens as we demand less of it, so that, iroportionately wo end in being almost as titolerant as we were before. A generation igo we were all getting indignant at intance6 of fathers who turned their sona idi'ift for not believing in the Thirty-nine Vrticles; but modern life shows a stronger ihase—the antagonism of no creed against reed. To bo without a dogma has been aiscd into the dignity of a faith, and so his non-belief, too, considers itself liable, o insult, li is very curious to see anyme bigoted without anything to be bigoted nth. It has a nightmare-like effect, as if a nan should talk without a head, or feel tain in a limb that isn't there, or suffer rom appendicitis when the appendix has eon removed. It is surprising to watch ie indignation of the indifferentist when >u oppose all that he doesn't hold sacred,

or give up that which he has ceased to uphold. It is not true to aver that the non-dogmatic is invariably, or even very

often, a persecutor in any large way; but observation shows us that he holds a prettv fair record in that line. Perhaps there a a reason for it. I have .used the metaphor

of feeling pain in a limb that isn't there; but- this is no paradox after all, but a scientific fact. You can feel pain in a limb that isn't there, and suffer from gout that you haven't got, as legless men have done. So with religion. Cut off a limb, or a religion, and you still feci pain from both. It is only the pleasant 6ensation6 that are lost forever.

Wo talk about the ages of persecution as being in the past; but the real ages of persecution are still to come, should Continental Socialism ever rise on top, as seems not unlikely. It may not bo so ruddy a persecution ns in days of yore, but it stands a chance of being much more chronic. History shows us that in the more dogmatio days risings of. creed against creed sometimes led to. picturesque, but —for the performers—disagreeable, public proceedings; but in between times there was often more amity than is sometimes displayed to-day. Christianity at that time was in the place that Imperialism holds to-day. The modern English have a craze for painting the map red, which is the English colour, and the Church at that, time had a craving to paint Europe blue, which is the Madonna's colour, and the Turks and Jews were the Boers of that time, whoso very presence interfered with the ideal. When, however, the religious world was not in one of what may bo called its mafficking moods, the three peoples had no 'such antagonism to one another as is sometimes imagined. There was less frequently displayed that dull, motiveless national antipathy which forbids the Chinaman of one colony, however well educated'and well behaved he may be, to visit another colony. The moderns have no fear that the Chinaman will spread his religion—perhaps they do not much care if he does,—yet he is treated more intolerantly than were aliens in the days when there was excuse for intolerance.

Perhaps there is more reason for this old-time tolerance, however, than is at first apparent. It is 'a fact that among individuals the orthodox party of each faith find themselves more in accord than they do with the unorthodox of their own faith. Thus the Christian who belongs to a wellestablished church that, has a definite scheme of- government and 6ome tradition behind it, will find himself curiously en rapport with a Jew or Mohammedan of his own standing, and will, in fact, paradoxically seek them out in order to feel that he is in Christian society. They are not quito the rose to him, but they are near it. Tho reason of this preference, which he first I notes with surprise, becomes plain to him on reflection.

Differing in certain points and sometimes in essential points, they are yet alike in their beliei that religion is, as according to its derivation it ought to be, not a loosening, but a binding, that it does not " dwarf ■a child's intellect" to teach it dogma, and also in the almost monotonous desire they show—Mohammedan and Jew and Church Christian alike—to take the examples on which they mould themselves from above and not from below. , _ An instance of this occurred to tne writer when reading one of Mrs Nisbet's charming stories for children, in which this modernminded authoress depicts an elder man explaining to a little boy what tho law of chivalry is. " Why should girls be thought so much off says the little boy, adding his observation that he thinks they can look well enough after themselves. Ono might imagine how a Jew, Christian, cr Mohammedan would have answered that question. ■ Ono can fancy, for instance, the orthodox old-faehioned Jew reminding his son of Deborah, Esther, Judith, who saved their people, and instancing 'Rachel and Sarah as names for whose sako all women should be honoored. The prophet of Islam might be instanced l>y the Mohammedan aa oxtolling at lea6t one woman, while the Christian would see his New Testament glowing with names, and -would scarcely know where to begin All would give substantially the'' same answer-d woman 6 name. Now, one does not blame Mrs Nisbet that she 'does not wish to introduce direct religious teaching into her children' 6 stories. We certainly do not wish to revivo tho old days when voung Edmund.Gosse, tod that he was to have a stepmother, merely inquired, "Has she any Anabaptist tendencies?" We do not want our children to come to fighting for sectarianism in the streets, as a Duncdin gentleman thinks not unlikely of occurrence; we do not want them in the fight at all, as in Portugal, where some of them are adorned with badges cheerfully inscribed, "No God; no faith " Still, while avoiding that .specially dreadful thing, according to modern ideas, "definite dogmatic teaching," ono thinks that Mrs Nisbet might have done bettor with her uncle and little boy than to make the former point gravely to the lower animals, and allege their (only occasional) protection of tho "mother creature" as tho origin of and the reason for chivalry. Yet so accustomed are we to analogies taken from below that many person's would think tho above illustration ."beautiful,' and would consider very intolerant the person ulio believes that in a child's mind the idea of chivalry -might be associated with something higher. .