Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Official Report 797KB pdf

---

Time for Reflection

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Maud Robinson, who is a minister to the Unitarians in Edinburgh at St Mark’s Church.

Thank you very much for inviting me here this afternoon.

In years gone by, confessing a Unitarian faith could lead one to a sticky end. In 1697, Thomas Aikenhead, a young Edinburgh medical student, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity; for that offence he was hanged. It was not until 1813 that the Unitarian Relief Act granted toleration for Unitarian worship. This year marks the 200th anniversary of that act of toleration.

With our Unitarian history of being denied tolerance, a strong strand of Unitarian faith and practice has championed toleration of difference. Our congregations now comprise people who identify as Christian, Buddhist, humanist and agnostic, and many others, so I commend to you some thoughts about tolerance.

Words evolve and change, but they often continue to carry nuances from the past. That is why it is important that we think deeply about the particular words that we use. The root of the word “tolerance” carries, as one meaning,

“to experience or undergo pain or hardship”.

Are those really the terms in which we wish to view our relationships with those who differ from us? Maybe it is time to look beyond the word “tolerance”. What word can we think of using in its place?

There is compassion—the central virtue of all the world faiths. It is a worthy ideal to aspire to, but does it cover the same ground as tolerance? Is it so wide that the initial focus on relations with those who differ from us is lost? If we try to approach those of different beliefs with compassion, we may treat them with kindness as fellow human beings, but does it challenge us to truly engage with them in relation to their differing beliefs and world views?

What about acceptance? It certainly does not carry the grudging connotations of tolerance, but it can imply an uncritical wholesale embrace of everything that is said or done in the name of a cultural or faith tradition. As thinking people, we cannot accept actions that emanate from a different world view if they are harmful to others. That can be a difficult line to walk, but blind acceptance is not the answer.

Finally, I suggest respect. Respect means “to value others”. Tolerance can avoid engagement; respect welcomes it. This vision of moving beyond tolerance towards respect and active engagement with difference seems a better aspiration. Respect speaks more of thoughtful consideration. It is more generous than the implications of doing something grudgingly, which can be understood by tolerance, but it is more thoughtful and constructively critical than careless acceptance.

If each one of us could strive to treat those who are different from us with engaged respect, rather than with grudging tolerance or unthinking acceptance, we might indeed find ourselves living in a much better world. Thank you for your attention.