Horizon

Hmmm. I'm not at all sure that's the case at all -- it all depends on whether your tolerance and respect is for the belief or the believer.

As a Catholic, I have no respect whatsoever for the Muslim belief that Jesus wasn't actually crucified, but instead snuck off somewhere snickering up his sleeve at the sucker who went up in his place. But I must respect the consciences of Muslims to hold this erroneous opinion until they can be convinced of the truth. If professions of faith freely made are the only ones that are valid — admittedly not a universally shared opinion — I cannot compell someone to disavow a falsehood they sincerely believe in favor of lip-service to the truth. My disrespect for the error foces me to tolerate it in order to truly eradicate it. My respect for the independent conscience of a disbeliever leads me to tolerate his disbelief.

I have no idea if that's what Rasmussen's getting at — actually I suspect it isn't. It's difficult for me to imagine precisely what "a tolerant society which respects all faiths" means.

More on this later, with quotes from Frank Rich and Eugene Genovese.

This isn't about individuals, though, it's about societies - a tolerant society being one in which (presumably) people are allowed to hold and publicize all kinds of beliefs, some of which are inevitably going to 'disrespect' those of others. Conversely, any 'respectful' society worth its name must presumably exercise a certain amount of intolerance towards critiques of faith, in the form of censorship, etc.

Would you then say that a socity respectful of faith is necessarily creedal?

I don't know; I'll tell you after I look it up in the OED.

My point being that there are ways to "respect" religion that don't favor one over another, nor even belief over disbelief. Non-profit tax exemptions in the U.S. being an example.

... no. I suppose it could be 'respectful of faith' in the sort of wishy, washy, It's-All-the-Same-God-Anyhow kind of way (which from a certain point of view is the ultimate disrespect), but I'm not sure that a society that seriously follows one faith can 'respect all [other] faiths', because surely there comes a point beyond which no two discrete liturgies can be reconcilable.

Perhaps the only kind of society which could truly be respectful of all faiths is one in which the members don't themselves take religion seriously, but are guilty or terrified enough not to want this skepticism to become too well known. Whether this description rings any bells I'll leave up to you ...

More on this this evening. Meanwhile, the cartoon objectors descend into total lunacy:

So I guess it's not just that we aren't supposed to draw pictures of Mohammed as terrorist, or of Mohammed at all; we aren't even supposed to draw pictures that are obviously not of Mohammed, and that are meant to mock the inability to draw pictures of Mohammed.

Erm, unfortunately, I've loaned my copy of Genovese's The Southern Tradition to an old college roomie, and will have to get back to you on the respect/tolerance issue.

I can respect/tolerate that.