The First Presbyterian Church, Carlstadt NJ hosted the Peace Islands Institute (PII) in an Abraham’s Table event on Thursday October 25, 2012. The theme was “Free Speech and Religious Tolerance” from Christian, Jewish and Muslim Perspectives.
Speakers:
Rev. Donald Pitches
Dr. Mesut Sahin
Rabbi David Fine
We thank the people of The First Presbyterian Church and PII volunteers for making this event possible.
Below is the very brief summary of the speeches.
Rev. Donald Pitches:
“I believe it’s that common purpose we have that brings us together. Our topic is Free Speech and Religious Tolerance. Preachers’ are told; ‘never to begin with apologies’; but I do begin with the apology. I am not an expert on free speech or religious tolerance. What I have been learning is been learned in the last few weeks, doing research, reading articles, going to websites as so many of us. But I thought, I would be helpful at least here in the United States to go back to constitution, which is bedrock for some of these freedoms.
Think about free speech and religious tolerance, I think that in contrasting them, it sometimes is easy to say “Oh definitely, I am favor for free speech or I am for religious tolerance.” What are the opposites, if it would? What are the contrasting polls for free speech? Restrictions, prohibitions, repressions.
What are the opposite or the contrast religious tolerance? Is it hate, indifference, ignorance, prosecution. Thinking about in the contrast, we can often say “oh I know which side I am on!”
Dr. Mesut Sahin
First of all, this meeting is meaningful called Abraham’s table. Tomorrow is one of the biggest celebrations in the Muslim calendar, which is Eid al-Adha (feast of the sacrifice). It is the time that Muslims are celebrating the event that took place in the lifetime of Abraham.
Let me begin with a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He said; “Those who see an injustice done and not speak about it. That is like Satan in a way.” If you see injustice done, you have to speak up about it. Otherwise it is an evil act. You cannot simply turn evil eye to it. Turning a blind eye is in fact not just being passive about it. But it is actually allowing that evil act to continue.
The way take this question is Freedom of speech and religious tolerance. Today, in the Muslim world, it all relates to this recent event of cartoons and movies and all these attacks may to Muslim values and responds of the Muslims to those values.
Rabbi David Fine
I want to look at and think about Jewish perspective in Freedom of Speech and Religious Tolerance; there is a two angle. One is internally, in Jewish history and tradition. The other is externally, in terms of speech within Judaism. And let me start with that.
The value of free speech is incredibly strong in the Talmud disagreements and different viewpoints; to understand the viewpoint and understand methodology of the minority voice. Even though everybody knows that tradition is not a different path and it will go and later generations will put the fences in the voices of the minority view and then how will the others respond? And then recreate dialogue to understand the argument of those the one who disagree with. And this is such an important principle that free speech is not just being able to say what I believe but it is also establishing dialogue where I bring myself to understand the other even though I do not agree.
He briefly explained parable that you can see at the below.
In the Orient in ancient times there lived a man who possessed a ring of inestimable worth. Its stone was an opal that emitted a hundred colors, but its real value lay in its ability to make its wearer beloved of God and man. The ring passed from father to most favored son for many generations, until finally its owner was a father with three sons, all equally deserving. Unable to decide which of the three sons was most worthy, the father commissioned a master artisan to make two exact copies of the ring, then gave each son a ring, and each son believed that he alone had inherited the original and true ring.
But instead of harmony, the father’s plan brought only discord to his heirs. Shortly after the father died, each of the sons claimed to be the sole ruler of the father’s house, each basing his claim to authority on the ring given to him by the father. The discord grew even stronger and more hateful when a close examination of the rings failed to disclose any differences.
The dispute among the brothers grew until their case was finally brought before a judge. After hearing the history of the original ring and its miraculous powers, the judge pronounced his conclusion: “The authentic ring” he said, “had the power to make its owner beloved of God and man, but each of your rings has brought only hatred and strife. None of you is loved by others; each loves only himself. Therefore I must conclude that none of you has the original ring. Your father must have lost it, then attempted to hide his loss by having three counterfeit rings made, and these are the rings that cause you so much grief.”
The judge continued: “Or it may be that your father, weary of the tyranny of a single ring, made duplicates, which he gave to you. Let each of you demonstrate his belief in the power of his ring by conducting his life in such a manner that he fully merits — as anciently promised — the love of God and man.
We would even make a difference today. First of all, we would be the three sons. Besides that I think the problem and how we have to move even beyond tolerance. Is that lesson of tolerating? His Muslim and his Jewish friends, but he still believes that one of the three is the true ring and the other two are not. And even though among each one believes that his is true. And lesson as a Christian belief that his ring is true ring and he is just tolerating his Muslim and Jewish friends. The right to believe that theirs is the true, even though he knows in fact his is true. So, we have to move beyond that sense one view is absolutely true. We would tell the different. We would say that what he would have to do? Would he have to melt metal down? And then make three rings same metal. So, that all three are true. That is moving beyond the tolerance to sharing table truly together amongst to each other.