Association or distinction

 Sitting opposite a couple of Hindu sanyasis at the Rajahmundry airport terminal, I said to myself... I'm not very different from them. Mostly a difference of religious affiliation. 

Yet in a world that is so divided, we barely think of the similarities and often focus or harp on the distinctions. We prefer to stand out than stand with. 

Our tendency to associate and seek the linkages is far weaker than our urge to disassociate. 

Makes me think if this divisive urge is inherent in the character of religion or have we forced upon it.

Religion: inside out

 Here's another piece of reflection from Johnson Kottaram, about religion which is quite challenging, and true! 

Faith or Faction? 

When religion leaves the quiet space of conscience and enters the public arena, it stops being sacred and starts being strategic. It no longer redeems; it recruits. 

 When Jemimah Rodrigues thanked Jesus after her cricketing triumph, it was an intimate moment of gratitude. But in a country charged with religious fault lines, her words became ammunition. 

 The devout saw divine favour; the hostile saw provocation. What should have united us in admiration divided us along belief. 

 This isn’t an Indian peculiarity; it’s a global malaise. 

 In the Vatican itself, Pope Leo XIV’s recent permission for ultra-conservatives to celebrate the Tridentine Mass inside St. Peter’s Basilica looks less like pastoral generosity and more like an act of appeasement—a cautious nod to figures such as Cardinal Burke who equate faith with form and liturgy with loyalty. 

 The altar, once a place of communion, becomes a negotiation table between warring factions. 

 Even the brilliant Mahmood Mamdani, admired for his intellect and moral clarity, finds himself reduced to a “Muslim voice” by opponents who cannot see beyond labels. 

 In every corner of the world, identity has begun to shout louder than integrity. 

 The problem is not faith; it’s its exhibition. When belief is worn like a badge, it stops being a bridge and becomes a barricade. 

 A faith that needs applause is already insecure. 

 Real spirituality works inward—it refines, questions, and softens. Public religiosity, by contrast, hardens. It demands allegiance, not understanding; conformity, not compassion. 

 Until we learn to keep faith where it belongs—in the inner sanctum of the self—it will remain a divisive force, beautiful in symbol but toxic in practice.

Cow politics

 Here's a well written piece on the cow... an animal considered sacred in Indian politics (more than in religion!). I'm not sure if the article will continue to be available for long. Hence I've copied excerpts of it here, after the title of the article. The author is Abhishek Chakraborty. Originally published here on News abp LIVE (read on 9 September 2025).

The article is fairly balanced without taking any political sides: BJP or Congress.  But fairly exposes the way the cow - and for that matter, anything - can be turned into a political tool. The title of the article sums it all up! 

'Gau' Is 'Mata' Only When Breed Is Indian. The Foreign Jersey Cow Is Another Story In Politics

(Source: MSN 9 September 2025)

 

The Jersey cow holds a curious place in Indian political rhetoric — a symbol of both dairy prosperity and pointed political insults. BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have not shied away from turning this breed into a quirky metaphor for Opposition figures, despite the Hindu reverence for cows as "mother". 

Cow: Mother Or Insult? Politicians, Please Decide 

In the colourful menagerie of Indian politics, hardly anything is sacred — not even the 'sacred' cow. Prime Minister Narendra Modi notoriously referred to Sonia Gandhi as a "Jersey cow" in 2004 and Rahul Gandhi as a "hybrid calf," a jab at his parentage (Italian mother, Indian father) during his early election campaigns in Gujarat. 

From Channel Islands To Indian Fields And... Politics 

Before it became political ammo, the Jersey cow revolutionised Indian dairies. Bred on the British Channel Island of Jersey, the breed was imported to India to boost local milk yields, especially after the White Revolution in the 1970s. 

Why did Jersey cows fit in so well? They are small, hardy, adapt to local climates, and — most importantly — pump out creamy, high-fat milk that's perfect for making all things buttery and decadent. Indian farmers find them more profitable, and the breed's early maturity and high fertility ensure a steady stream of income. 

Jersey cows contributed to India's White Revolution, or 'Operation Flood', primarily through cross-breeding with native breeds to increase milk yield and improve milk quality, producing richer milk with higher fat and protein content. So it should not be an insult, right? 

The problem lies in the "foreign" origin. Even though the breed has made India its home, it is still not the 'gau mata' Indian Hindus have come to revere. At least, the political 'insults' seem to prove that. 

The Political Moo-d — Then And Now 

The cow in India is used in a lot of contexts today. Sometimes it is used to denote a naive and simple person, at others, it becomes a rebuke to call someone stupid and a good-for-nothing. No demarcation of native or foreign breed there. But, how did the Jersey cow morph from livestock to linguistic sledgehammer? Maybe it's just too tempting — a breed that represents both economic success and foreignness. 

In India, the sacred cow is never to be insulted, but a Jersey cow? She's fair game for wordplay, even as her "native" cousins get garlanded. 

Clearly, whether it's Congress or BJP, the cow — Jersey or native — is an instrument of politics. None is ready to commit to a ban on its slaughter, but none is ready to advocate beef either. But perhaps, the native cow commands a tad more respect. 

Whether in the cowshed or in the political arena, the cow rules the headlines and will continue to do so for a long time to come.

Religion and humanity

 From a letter to the editor (The Hindu, 8 August 2000)

I know a Christian gentleman who lived in this little town,' who used to care for the poor people who came to him.  Among the poor people who used to go to him was an old man in his 70s whose eyes were bad.  The Christian gentleman got him a pair of spectacles.  As years went by the old man became practically blind. "One day he came to this gentleman and asked him if he would receive him into the Christian faith.  The gentleman asked him, "Why do you want to change your religion? You could as well remain a Hindu."  The answer the old man gave was a gem.  "You know every day I meet a lot of people as I beg through the streets around.  People of all religions.  People who worship God in their different ways. But I have a feeling that your way must be the best one, because every time I come to your door, I feel I am a human being."

Stages of growth and accompaniment

Last month we had a session on accompaniment, wherein Fr Raja spoke quite lucidly about the four different stages or levels of spiritual growth and the type of recommended accompaniment at each stage. The first stage is a very shallow level where individuals are basically self-centred and selfish.  Those at this stage need to be supported and encouraged to engage in an honest self-appraisal, rather than be endorsed or consoled! 

The next level of faith, is institutional.  Most of us fall under that category.  God is seen as external, formal, rigorous, legalistic and dogmatic. Accompaniment at this level is gentle, with a slight nudge towards internalisation and the next level. 

The third level is a more mature level, but hardly follows any order. This is perhaps the most unsettling stage for young people who find it difficult to balance the traditional faith inherited from their parents (second level) and the disconnect they feel within themselves to accepting this faith.  Hence the inner turmoil.  This is a stage where people tend to explore, not with the intent of rebellion but a genuine interest in deepening one's idea of God, spirituality and religion.  People herein seek logical answers to their queries; rather than magical rites. They tend to take ownership of their own faith. Accompanying them, one shouldn't push them to engage in traditional religious practices, which they often rebel against. They do not reject faith as such, but inherited faith. 

We keep shuffling between these three levels, never stuck at any one particular. Maturity lies in moving towards the third stage; and touching the fourth stage (mystical). 

The last stage is mystical, where interconnectedness is emphasised, community is valued greater than individuals, lack of answers and logic does not perturb much, and is perhaps a mix of the second (dogmatic) and the third (rational) stages. 

Listening to him, I asked myself: Are we as a Province (confreres put together) at the third stage of religious consciousness/spirituality; whereas the orientation of the accompaniment offered by the leadership is of the second stage!?? … our emphasis on the routines, rituals, dogmas, whereas individuals are undergoing a phase of faith-loss, and in the process of search for truth. That said, there are some clearly very much in stage one (self-centred and even anti-social).

Irrationality

In the preamble of the book on Irrationality (by Justin Smith)...

At the individual level irrationality manifests itself as dreams, emotion, passion, desire, affect, enhanced by drugs, alcohol, meditation; at the social level it is expressed as religion, mysticism, storytelling, conspiracy theory, sports fandom, rioting, rhetoric, mass demonstrations, sexuality when it bursts out of its prescribed roles, music when it breaks away from the notes on the sheet and takes on a life of its own.

Perfect recipe for speaking of Romanticism! 

Ayodhya: Historical record (reproduced article)

The following is the exact text of the article, as it appeared on the online edition of The Times of India on Nov. 10, 2019.  Just preserving it... before it disappears! Claim no credit to the content of it, but doing it purely for documentation... as the article rightly states we Indians "disregard (for) documentation." All merit of content is to The Times of India.  The original online article can be read here.

------

Accounts of European priest, travellers suggest both faiths worshipped at Ayodhya site pre-1857
by
Vaibhav Purandare


P Carnegy is not a name that will ring a bell in contemporary India. But this Britisher, an assistant commissioner of the Raj in Faizabad in the 1860s, is among those who played, unwittingly, a key role in providing champions of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement substantive material to make the case that Hindus had launched their struggle for the ‘janmasthan’ in Ayodhya much before the Ram Lalla idol was installed in 1949.

Writing a historical sketch of ‘Fyzabad’, as he spelt it, Carnegy wrote that until 1855, the year in which communal violence broke out in Ayodhya over possession of Hanuman Garhi and the ‘janmasthan’, “Hindus and Muslims alike used to worship in the mosque-temple."

But “since British rule (in 1858, that is) a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they make their offerings.”

Carnegy wasn’t the first to point to “joint worship” in the inner yard. That credit goes to Austrian Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler who visited Awadh circa 1770 and recorded that 12 “koti and kasauti” pillars supported the Babri Masjid’s interior arcades and that there stood a square box called the “bedi” or cradle at the entrance, “where Vishnu took incarnation as Ram”. Tieffenthaler’s theory was that it wasn’t Babar or Mir Baqi in 1528 but Aurangzeb in the 17th century who had destroyed the shrine “to deprive Hindus of their faith”. Yet, the Jesuit priest wrote, Hindus still came to the spot to do their circumambulation and prostrated.

The first to refer to an inscription inside the masjid which stated it was built in 1528 by Babar’s chieftain Mir Baqi was F C Buchanan, physician of Lord Wellesley, who visited Ayodhya between 1807 and 1814. And the first legal record came in 1822, when a superintendent in Faizabad court, Hafizullah, submitted his report in Persian saying “the mosque founded by emperor Babur is situated at the Janmasthana”, “adjacent to the kitchen of Sita”.

After that, records about the dispute and about the persistent Hindu claim to the disputed site piled up quickly, with other European travellers following in Tieffenthaler’s footsteps and British officials such as A F Millet taking the path trodden by Carnegy.

Millet, a land revenue officer of Faizabad district, stated in his report of 1880 that Hindus and Muslims had worshipped “alike” inside the structure, and the writer-traveller Edward B Eastwick recorded in his ‘Handbook of the Bengal Presidency’ in 1888 that before 1858, namaz and puja were both performed inside the shrine. The British officials of the period demonstrated the opposite of the well-known Indian disregard for documentation.

The gazetteers of 1854, 1881, 1892, 1905, the Archaeological Survey Report of 1891 and later archaeological and general survey reports of the 1930s reinforced the theory of the mosque having been constructed after demolishing a temple and of intermittent Hindu efforts to get the spot back.

The archaeological report of 1891 by A Fuhrer, who translated three inscriptions inside the mosque, corroborated Buchanan’s view that it was Mir Baqi who “by the order of Babar” had built the mosque circa 1520 “on the very spot where the old temple Janmasthanam of Ramchandra was standing”.

The old temple, Fuhrer said, “must have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s masjid”. A police complaint launched by the muezzin of the Babri Masjid in November 1858 too became part of the ‘janmabhoomi’ docket for the protemple side. Syed Muhammad Khatib, who used to call the faithful to prayer in the mosque, had written to local cops a year after the 1857 revolt that a Nihang Sikh, a Bairagi (ascetic), was “on the rampage at the Janmasthan."

He had forcibly built a “chabutra in the middle of the Babri mosque” and had raised the platform and placed a flag, a picture and an idol, the muezzin complained, urging authorities to get the construction demolished and oust Hindus from the place, where, earlier, the “nishaan of Janmasthan lay for hundreds of years and Hindus used to do puja.” These documents were put forward by the Hindu side in the post-1985 VHP (and later BJP) agitation phase to buttress their case.

Being Christians

What makes us Christian?  Very many think of being Christian as an identity that needs to be safeguarded.  It is something that we need to "protect" and "uphold" from all the rest of the peoples.  By being apart we preserve and show ourselves as Christians.  But that's the most unchristian thing to think and do! 

Being a Christian does not mean to be standing apart or worse, above others.  The yeast does not make any impact on the dough if it says to itself, "I'm not going to mingle with that un-yeast!  My identity is something higher than this dough and therefore I need to stand above the dough!"  Such a yeast is as good as absent!  For the yeast to leaven the dough, it needs to be mixed well with the latter.  Spread well, and because it mixes with it, the yeast by its mere presence does what it does best - transform the dough!  In the process the yeast is not too worried about safeguarding its identity.  The presence of the yeast is easily noticed by the everyone once the bread is baked and ready.  Once baked, there is neither yeast, nor dough! 

As Christians, we are called to be the yeast.  Our presence is meaningful and worth the name, only when we, being Christ-like, live for God and others.  If we are to live purely for ourselves, holding the placard of 'Christians' at a distance from others, we surely will survive but deprive ourselves of Christ. Imagine what Christians would be without Christ!  Not too hard to, just imagine what bread would be without yeast!  

Wittgenstein, language and transcendence...

Speaking of Wittgenstein, language and transcendence...

The fact that we might even be tempted to suppose we can do that bespeaks a deeply human longing to step outside our own skins. We can feel trapped by our bodily, time-bound existence. There’s a kind of religious impulse that seeks liberation from these limits: it seeks to transcend our finite selves and make contact with the infinite. Wittgenstein’s religious impulse pushes us in the opposite direction: he doesn’t try to satisfy our aspiration for transcendence but to wean us from that aspiration altogether. The liberation he offers isn’t liberation from our bounded selves but for our bounded selves.

Metaphysical speculations, for Wittgenstein, are like gears that have slipped free from the mechanism of language and are spinning wildly out of control. Wittgenstein the engineer wants to get the mechanism running smoothly. And this is precisely where the spiritual insight resides: our aim, properly understood, isn’t transcendence but a fully invested immanence. In this respect, he offers a peculiarly technical approach to an aspiration that finds expression in mystics from Meister Eckhart to the Zen patriarchs: not to ascend to a state of perfection but to recognise that where you are, already, in this moment, is all the perfection you need. 

Found at Aeon

Deification and Idolization

In the Acts of the apostles, after the resurrection of Jesus, the apostles go around preaching the risen Christ.  In Liconium, they find themselves in a very weird situation.  Having performed a couple of miracles and verified the authenticity of their preaching, they are being praised and exalted by the people.  The people then decide to offer sacrifice to the new 'gods' amidst them!  Peter rebukes them sternly.  Deification of mortals. 

Come to modern times where at times the gods are happily 'idolized'.  "You stay there and we'll do everything that needs to be done.  Just don't move!" That's the silent prayer of most priests and religious elders. Idolization of gods.  

Once humans were exalted to be worshipped as gods.  Today God is 'refrigerated'/ fossilized.   

Religion as personal or private?

Another note on the differences between religion as personal and religion as private.  Again, a very subjective distinction. 

In viewing religion as purely private affair, one tends to feel as one 'in charge'.  Just as in the case of property owned by an individual, 'private property', one feels that one has authority over it, so in the case of treating religion as private, one feels that one is in authority.  Unfortunately not every aspect of religion can be so 'subjugated'.  There are aspects of religion wherein one cannot be considered to be in the driving seat.  Being open to that possibility, in a sense being passive, is part of the nature of religion. 

Furthermore, any experience of the supernatural cannot be actually 'contained'.   If genuine, it naturally flows into every aspect of one's life.  Any attempt to contain it, restrict it merely to oneself, is one of the offshoots of viewing religion as private.  In the same vein, viewing religion as private tends to exclusivity (my religion and me; or my God and me) whereas when viewed as personal, there is greater openness towards inclusivity (my religion, me and all of us within a larger reality; or my God and me in the world).  

Religion: Private or personal?

Is practice of religion, something private or personal?  I've not really studied the dictionary and the etymological meaning of the two words but feel that there can be a distinction drawn for clarity.  Most often, the developed world tends to keep religion to the private.  That's something not to be paraded about in the open.  Unfortunately I feel this should be the attitude of theistic countries!  Countries and places where the unholy mix of religion and politics breeds nothing but vice! 

I would rather look at religion as something personal.  This way, principles and convictions one lives by are something totally of the individual and not something enforced by him or her or enforced upon one - in the name of religion.  These are matters which guide and direct one in ones life.  Keeping religion private would mean something hidden and secretive.  That festers fermentation and is bound to explode sooner or later.  Treating religion as personal does not mean that it is hidden or totally out of bounds for anyone - it remains open to challenges, by the individual himself/herself, by the society, by anyone.  The concerned individual need not respond to all the challenges thrown at him or her.  But that the individual is open enough to review those challenges.  That openness is obliterated if religion is treated as purely private. 

The acid test for this is to ask if one's experience of God (one of the integral aspects of religion) is personal or private.  In both the cases, it is a one-to-one relationship.  However if the former, it shades and affects everything else the individual does.  If the latter, the affects of that experience will be buried deep within the individual and nothing of that experience will ever flow into (or from) the rest of one's living - a clear watertight inner experience!  

Religion: a different perspective

Reading Schleiermacher's On Religion, for the lecture today, I came across the following passage in his first speech (Apology):

I wish to lead you to the innermost depths from which religion first addresses the mind. I wish to show you from what capacity of humanity religion proceeds, and how it belongs to what is for you the highest and dearest. I wish to lead you to the pinnacles of the temple that you might survey the whole sanctuary and discover its innermost secrets.

[Schleiermacher, F. (1996) On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, Crouter, R. (ed.), Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 10-11].

Presented it to the students for discussion to see what they thought was the pinnacle, the sanctuary and the rest, that Scleiermacher is referring to in this passage.

While sitting with one of the groups it struck me that the passage can be viewed from a totally different perspective.  The normal reading of this gives one the impression of religion being a very special fact of human life.  That it is grand, large and tall.  How religion helps one achieve the best and the highest of human possibilities.  That religion is at the highest point of human experience, from which you can look down and see how the other aspects fare.  In the light of what precedes this passage and the whole mood of the speech, it is quite easy to arrive at this interpretation.

However, what struck me was that while religion does offer a different perspective, it is not a hierarchical standpoint that religion facilitates. Even if it does, from that position there is nothing hierarchical.  From a birds eyeview there is no tall, or big or great.  The whole dimension of viewing reality changes.  Nothing is tall, great, mighty, lofty, high, low... the viewpoint is totally different! So the same passage can also mean that religion offers a totally different view of the world and ourselves, something not possible for other aspects of life to offer or atleast offer easily. 

Of Gods and (wo)men

The Sabarimala row in Kerala is turning a bit nasty.  On the one hand, there is the Supreme court's direction banning any prohibition of anyone on the basis of gender to a common place of worship and on the other, there is the age-old tradition of the temple itself.  If that tradition were a fringe one, then one could put it aside, but in this case it touches one of the core values of the deity: the deity being considered a bachelor.  A heady mix of politics and religion is never healthy!

I've heard Catholics and other religious laugh it off or not really be bothered.  But I wonder what if the Court tomorrow decides to take up the issue of oridnation of women in the Catholic church.  Will the same catholics who are indifferent to the ongoing issue about Sabarimala take the same attitude?

However, for me there is something greater at stake here - in both the cases.  We often lose the focus.  We miss out important values for the sake of trivialities.  When and why does upholding entry or denial to do so into a place of worship, become more important and sacred than a human life? Why isn't there an uproar when men or women are killed, or inhumanely treated right before our eyes?  It is a question of getting our priorities right.  Getting into the temple or staying out is of no great signifiance.  If Ayyappa truly gets 'polluted' by a human being, then he certainly is no great a god.  And if only by getting into the garbhagruha of Sabarimala one gets to heaven, then heaven certainly is not worth striving for. 

As for the gods, I'm sure Lord Ayyappa and God the Father are having a good laugh at our expense somewhere up above! 

Teasing the mind

Assisting in teaching philosophy of religion at the University has indeed been a very special experience, so far.  I've taught the same course, albeit with a different content, but more or less the same themes, earlier as well.  That's in a seminary. But this experience here at the University has been very enriching. 

Comparatively I can say that back in the seminary we teach a group of students who are all believers.  So there is not a huge deal to convey proofs or arguments in favour of God or religion.  Convincing them of arguments for theism is pretty much a cake's walk. Unfortunately even the arguments against God and religion that are used and cited are mostly like paper tigers - appearing strong but somehow easily thrashed.  We do not really offer hardcore anti-theistic rational arguments for a robust philosophical study.  We merely tease or tickle the mind rather than crank it up to its maximum capacity. 

Perhaps we're afraid that the rational arguments may really challenge their faith.  Perhaps we, the educators ourselves, have not really been challenged.  Whatever it be the case, this opportunity to teach philosophy of religion has indeed been a great challenge for me.  Look forward to it, from further perspectives, in the next term as well.  

Witness

As part of the Alpha course that I joined today in the parish, we were watching a video by Nicky Gumbel. Therein he mentions about drugs and alcohol not being the problem, but the solution - at least for those addicted.  The real problem being reality.

That set me thinking for the rest of the talk and the evening.  Certainly for those addicted, drugs and alcohol are not the problem but the solution.  But for the rest of us, looking objectively at those addicted and the drugs and alcohol, that's a problem!  The real problem is reality.  In order to face this reality, those addicted use drugs and alcohol and they see it as a solution.  I was wondering if, as per the intention of this prayer/discussion, we the "faithful" see belief in Jesus as the solution. Someone looking at us believing in God/Jesus, sees this as a problem not a solution.  Just replace drugs/alcohol with Jesus or religion.  From the perspective of an "outsider" it is all the same. 

As a believer, it will do me no good to merely harp on Jesus or religion as the solution because the 'outsider' will only hear that as the rant of an 'addict'.  Perhaps what will influence his attitude is if he sees that this 'addiction' is actually helpful not just for me but for everyone who comes in contact with me, and that too in a holistic manner.  

Sacred and supernatural

According to Prof. Tim Crane, one of the elements that links "religious impulse" and "identification" - the two essential characteristics of religion, according to him overlooked by new atheists - is the sacred.  The notion of sacred forms one of the key elements of the characteristics of religion, any religion.  He said that anything could be sacred... a person, a thing, a text, an object... anything!  But this means that there is a distinction between the sacred and the profane. 

The sacred in so far as it represents the 'transcendence' aspect and is a point of unification among the people who agree upon its being distinct from other things, especially profane things, serves as a connecting factor.  So from what I understand, a thing to be sacred has to fulfill both these criterion: represent transcendence and be a source of unity.  That broadly gives us a vague criterion of judging something as sacred or not.  So there could be something that actually reflects the transcendence but not noticed or accepted by us OR something that is socially projected but not actually sharing in the transcendence aspect of reality.  Neither of these can be called sacred(?)

But there is one thing he mentioned in passing: "...the sacred need not be the supernatural."

That set me thinking. Then I remembered the whole distinction between the sign and the symbol, especially made by Paul Ricoeur.  Am not sure if that fits in with Prof. Tim Crane's understanding of the sacred.  However, I don't think Paul Ricoeur would have serious objections to the sacred not being the supernatural.  In as much as what is considered sacred shares the 'immanent' aspect with us human beings while being the representation of the 'transcendent', that what eludes material quantification, the sacred does not become the supernatural.  And if it does turn supernatural, then it loses its immanent character.  I'm thinking of all that we consider 'sacred' within the Catholic tradition: relics, the altar, consecrated statues, churches... all are basically still natural objects or things.  Even the person of Mother Mary, as long as she was here on earth she was a human being, immanent; but now we treat her as supernatural, but she is no more with us in that immanent form as she once did.  (The only exception I can think of is the Holy Communion. Can it be classified under this: representing the sacred but not the sacred itself?)

On the other hand, there is this dilemma as to whether we need this distinction of sacred and profane at all.  After all, if we are true to our Christian tradition, there is nothing that is 'not sacred'.  Everything, however mundane it appears, is sacred.  So perhaps we can at the most speak of 'degrees of sacredness', in so far as it is ascribed to a thing by us collectively and not merely in itself being a representation of the 'trascendence'.  

Understanding tolerance

Another key point Prof. Tim Crane made while presenting ideas from his latest book, The meaning of belief, was the notion of tolerance.  Beginning with historical origin of this word he explained how it initially was very much associated and connected with suffering.  It then basically meant accepting suffering for having no means of escape from it.  However over the years the meaning of the word tolerance has undergone a shift but is now slowly turning into something very different and harmful!   
In the context of religion and religious tolerance, the word takes a different meaning.  It is not that religion or religions are to be tolerated in as much as they cause suffering yet for no other alternative we accept them.  It is not even that we let other religions exist side by side, for want of peace.  This would mean that we resist anything that 'offends' other religions.  We respect them. Prof. Crane said that's an inappropriate and unhealthy notion of tolerance.  Tolerance, on the contrary, involves disapproval, and does not involve respect.  His position was that we need not respect beliefs.  In fact, many beliefs, especially religious beliefs are not worthy of respect!  Rather he stated that we need to respect people, respect believers, not beliefs.  He just stopped short of saying 'Respect believers, tolerate beliefs'!  Moreover he spoke of tolerance as a practical attitude rather than a theoretical stand.  However, he was open to accept that this notion of tolerance, limits of it, actual practical entailment of this, are still vague and not well defined in his thought.

He was mentioning of an article by Bernard Williams on Tolerance... should read up that. 

Truth and meaning

The talk of Prof. Tim Crane (of Central European University) I attended yesterday, as part of his latest book promotion The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheist's point of view was very interesting.  There was a large audience, the biggest I've ever seen in all the open public lectures I've been to so far.  Goes to show that people are still interested and curious to know about religion - even here in Europe! 

One of the key points he made prior to the exposition of the main ideas of his book was the distinction he made between truth and meaning.  He said he was not claiming to speak or clarify about the truth of religion.  He was only interested in the meaning of it.  He consciously made that decision because according to him a discussion on the truth would not lead him to any better understanding of religion, rather it would only cause further pain and division.  On the other hand, understanding religion and its contribution, or seeking meaning, would bring about a greater benefit for all.  After all, how can one criticize or even reject something without having a proper knowledge (an adequate conception) of religion? 

And according to me, though the two, truth and meaning, are connected, they need not always be present together.  The truth may not be meaningful (to all, all the time) and just because something is meaningful does not mean it is the truth.  

Tolerance vs harmony

For long the Indian belief system and the general mood of the population has considered Hinduism as a tolerant religion. Indeed it is – at least in its principles and core values. However, living here in Europe and often hearing of the Christian tradition and history, I wonder if the same tolerance can be said of Christianity too. But then on deeper reflection it struck me that the word 'tolerance' smacks of a sort of dominance and a kind of pitiful 'permission' for other beliefs to exist. Even in common usage we don't use the word 'tolerate' when speaking of human relations. And when we do, it is not in very positive and joyful description. To tolerate someone would mean to bear up, for want of no choice or out of sheer necessity. It certainly is not a pleasant scenario. So why use the term when referring to religions and religious adherents? Perhaps a better and more suitable word would be 'harmony'. Well it does not describe one particular religion or group but of the whole! Even if one were to use it for one particular religion, one would need to say that it promotes harmony, not tolerates other belief systems!