It’s now 2008.  This may not come as a surprise to you.  But the other day it did come as a surprise to me, when I realized that I’ve now been conducting choirs for thirty years: since 1978.  Methodist choirs, Presbyterian choirs, Jewish choirs, Unitarian Universalist choirs, Interfaith choirs.  And I remember being asked once, “Well, it’s great to be open-minded.  And you’re clearly a very tolerant person.  But with all this experience with different religions, surely by now you’ve figured out who’s right.”  I was a bit dumbfounded, which is not my natural state, as I realized that he actually expected an answer.

Tolerance, if not universally practiced in the United States, has certainly become politically correct.  Few want to be seen as intolerant.  Yet hidden beneath the tolerance, and sometimes not so hidden is that same question: who is right? 

Such a simple question, and so hard to deal with.  So many implications in those three words.  Who is right? 

When I was a kid, I was very confused about something.  Of course, now that I’m an adult I’m confused about so much more.  But one of the things that confused me as a kid was the idea that “might makes right.” 

So as a youth, when I saw a western called “The Big Country” one scene hit me like a ton of bricks.  It’s the scene where Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston fight each other for what seems like an hour.  They fight to a standstill.  Both beaten up.  Both on their knees, gasping for breath.  And Peck asks Heston, “So what did we prove?”

I bring this up because we humans have been trying to “prove” who’s “right” by beating each other to a pulp for thousands of years.  And rarely with such vehemence as when religion is involved. 

There’s joke about the perils of “right belief” attributed to comedian Emo Phillips.  It goes like this.

So I asked him, "Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

"Religious," he told me.

"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow! Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

To which I said, "Die, you heretic scum!" and I pushed him off the ledge.

Here, clearly, a little tolerance couldn’t hurt.  But is tolerance enough?  I’m certainly not here to try to persuade anyone to be intolerant.  But is tolerance, particularly religious tolerance enough?  I don’t think so.  Because tolerance never deals with the nagging question: who’s belief is right? 

Surely there is a better way than “tolerance,” and the truth of it is that the religions of the world, great and small, have tried – sincerely, and profoundly tried to get us there. 

It helps us, I think, in our discussions with others, to understand and realize that the very religions and beliefs over which so many have fought, have told us over and over … don’t go there.  We’ve spoken before of the prevalence around the world, in  every nation, every faith, every language, of some form of the “Golden Rule”.  But this morning let’s turn our attention to something else.  There is so much “us vs. them” between our religions.  That’s what we’ve learned, but is that really what our religions seek to teach us?

From Hinduism: “I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear.” The Bhagavad-Gita.

From Judaism: “I call heaven and earth to witness: whether Jew or Gentile,  man or woman, whether servant or freeman, they are all equal it this: that the Holy Spirit rests upon them in accordance with their deeds.”  Their deeds, not their beliefs or their position in life.  Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah.

From Christianity: “Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”  The Book of Acts.

From Islam: “O humanity, We have created you all out of a male and female and made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another.”  Qur’an.

From Buddhism: “So what of all these titles, names, and races?  They are mere worldly conventions.”  Sutta Nipata.

From Sikhism: “Know all human beings to be repositories of Divine Light; Stop not to inquire about their caste; In the hereafter there are no castes.”  Adi Granth.

Black Elk, in our reading today, wrote “And I saw that the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that make one circle, wide as daylight and starlight.”

Each of our religions teach us not only that we should love one another; but that all of us, regardless of belief or nation, or economic status or whatever other human made division we come up with: we are all one.

So what happened?  How on earth did we get this fixation on one “right” belief?  Some of it’s economic.  Some of it’s political.  I fear a large part of it comes with too much emphasis on which religion we practice, and too little on how we practice our religion. 

Weirdly, I think the Age of Enlightenment only made things worse.  Science took it’s heady place at the forefront of human progress.  According to science, at least until very recently, there is and can be only one right answer to a question.  If I pick up a piece of paper and someone asks me, “What is that?”  The only right answer is: “It’s a piece of paper.”  It’s not an onion.  And if I believe it’s an onion, I’m quite deluded.  Combine two hydrogen atoms with one of oxygen and you have water, not an egg.  And if I believe it’s an egg, I’m quite deluded. 

I’m so very grateful for quantum mechanics.  Suddenly there are things of which science it not quite so sure after all.  That “thing” you are so certain is a particle? …  may at this very moment be a wave.

I think quantum physics has in some ways rescued religion, as it breaks the shackles of a  perfectly ordered world with one right answer to everything.

Yet even this delightful development misses what is for me the crucial issue: not the religion we practice, but how we practice our religion.  If I am a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or an Atheist, or Buddhist, and my beliefs cause me to act in a loving and compassionate way – isn’t that what’s important?  Is my compassion and love “better” because I do these things in the name of Jesus, or Hillel or Mohammed, or Humanism or the Buddha?  And if I am a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim or an Atheist, or Buddhist, and my beliefs cause me to act in a selfish and destructive way – isn’t that what’s important?  Is my selfishness and destructiveness any “better” (or worse) because I do these things in the name of Jesus, or Hillel or Mohammed, or Humanism or the Buddha? 

If we would love, we must move from tolerance to respect.  This is an important message that we who embrace Interfaith can bring to the world … if we can overcome our shyness.   And if we will remember that we too, if we are not careful, can all too easily slip from respect to tolerance.

It sounds simple.  But it isn’t.  It’s hard to be respectful when someone else’s beliefs are so completely different from our own.  We need to acknowledge that – not give in to it, but acknowledge it.  It’s when we think it’s easy that we slip into tolerance of each other, rather than respect.  It’s when we think that it is easy that we evaluate the differing spiritual paths rather than valuing the diversity within them.

So, is there hope?  Absolutely.  Interfaith, as a movement that promotes respect for our differences, is growing. 

It is a delightful coincidence that after the service today we will be continuing our Interfaith Dialogues, this week with the Acacia Foundation.  This is their mission statement:

to promote cross-cultural dialogue by emphasizing universal values such as love, truth, faith, brotherhood, solidarity and sharing; to encourage strong family values, high morals, and ethics among community; and to help establish a society where individuals love, respect and accept each other as they are.

Love and respect, and accepting each other as we are.  I hope you’ll be joining us for the Acacia Foundation’s short presentation and a sharing of "Noah's pudding" that will follow immediately after our social time.  It is good to have them here.

And so we close knowing that we are not alone.  Knowing that it is possible.  We can do this.  It is an exciting time to be alive.  It is a dangerous time, to be sure.  But exciting.  Things do not have to stay as they have been.  As Real Folk sang at the very beginning of this service, “The Times, They Are A-Changing.”

Let each of us be involved.

May it be so.