Kirkbride 1
Derek Kirkbride
Understanding Religious Intolerance
Dr. Griffith
Intolerance in Our Midst (revised)
November 21, 2013
Intolerance in Cincinnati
The term “religious intolerance” is not one that will catch the attention of many people. The
reasons for this vary from person to person. Some people believe that their beliefs are correct, and that
anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, so they use that belief to justify their intolerance. Many
other people use intolerant speech, or have intolerant attitudes, and may not even be aware of the
impact that their actions have on the people and groups that are around them. Still many other people
are likely under the assumption that religious intolerance isn’t something that actually happens. Or if
they do believe that it actually happens, they don’t believe that it happens in our country, state, or city.
The problem is that it does, and people that are not the target of the intolerance, often turn a blind eye
to what is taking place around them. This paper will strive to highlight multiple occasions when religious
intolerance has been present in our community, and show that intolerance presents itself in many
different forms, and against many different religions.
In early October, 2013, faith leaders in the Cincinnati area, led by Pastor Eugene Ellington,
organized prayer walks that would attempt to combat violence around the city. The leaders of the
prayer walks extended an invitation to the Cincinnati police to be a part of their cause. Several police
officers chose to participate. It should be noted that the police officers who participated were off-duty,
and were not in uniform. The organizers of the walks felt that they were having success in reducing the
amount of violence in the neighborhoods that they were walking in. When the Freedom from Religion
Foundation found out that there were police officers participating in the walks, they threatened to file a
Kirkbride 2
lawsuit against the police department unless they would forbid members of the police department from
taking part. Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell suggested that the walks be called “peace walks” instead, so
that the religious aspect of the walks would be neutralized, but the organizers of the walks refused to do
so.
There are multiple arguments that can be made by both parties involved. From the point of
view of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, having police officers participate in a prayer walk is not
adhering to the policy of separation of Church and state. This policy, simply put, means that the
government and the church are two separate entities, and that neither should interfere nor become
involved in the work done by the other. Because the Police force is part of the government, it could be
argued that the government is joining the work of the church, and thus favoring a single religion. That
can be countered with the fact that the officers who took part were not in uniform and were off-duty.
The organizers of the walks say that they have not been trying to undermine our government’s policies,
but rather, just trying to get some recognizable people to participate in what they considered to be a
good cause. If the officers had been walking while on-duty, I would likely agree with the Freedom from
Religion Foundation, but because they were off-duty, and not in uniform, I don’t believe that it should
be a problem. They should have the right to participate in whatever cause they feel is worthwhile, just
like the rest of us can. If this right is taken away from them, then they are being denied their
constitutional right to have religious freedom. Because of the actions of the Freedom from Religion
Foundation, the officers are forced to choose between remaining an officer and denying their religion,
or following their religion and losing their job. It cannot be considered tolerant of this organization to
put anyone in such a situation, just because of their religious beliefs.
The intolerance in our area goes beyond outreach programs, and affects many religions other
than Christianity. On a Tuesday in 2005, the Clifton Mosque, also known as the Islamic Association of
Kirkbride 3
Cincinnati Mosque, had a bomb explode outside one of its doors. The bomb went off at about 10:10
p.m. The evening prayer session had ended earlier that night, at 8:00 p.m. Within about 2 hours, the
FBI had arrived on the scene. The Islamic Association has two connected buildings: one is a brick house,
and the other is a worship center where all of the worship sessions take place. The bomb exploded
outside the door of the house part of the building, causing damage to the door. On a given Friday, there
are about 300-500 people that worship at the Mosque (Cincinnati.com). Because the bombing occurred
well after the prayer session, no one was hurt by the explosion.
There really is no argument that can be made to support the bombing of the mosque. This was
a clear act of intolerance, and would be considered such regardless of the group that it was done to. It
is still unknown who was behind the attack. Since that time, no further attacks of this magnitude have
taken place. Acts of intolerance against this Muslim group do not seem to happen regularly. In the
words of mosque committee member, Majed Dbdoub: “We always get the support of the community
here. We have not received any threats or any of that. This is why we're shocked, actually, that someone
is thinking about harming our community here” (wikispaces).
There is another act of intolerance in our midst that nearly any University of Cincinnati student
or faculty has witnessed first-hand. About once every semester, there are “religious nuts” that visit our
campus. In referring to them as “religious nuts,” I do not intend to be intolerant, but simply describe
them in the way that many on or around our campus would. These people spend the entire day (or
sometimes multiple days) yelling at all of our students about God, Jesus, eternity, and how everyone is
going to go to Hell. Sometimes they are less vocal, and simply carry signs, or hand out fliers to everyone
who walks by. More often than not, something will be yelled at the students that will upset some of the
people walking by, and a crowd will gather around the person yelling. The students then proceed to
Kirkbride 4
argue and yell back, always without real success, because the religious nut has a sort of “invincibility”
because of the university’s free speech policy.
Analyzing this situation is a bit more complex than the others, because there is such a great deal
of intolerance coming from both parties. The religious nut is acting intolerant toward the students and
staff walking past him, both religiously and otherwise. Everyone walking on campus is dealing with the
stresses of college life, and the last thing anyone needs is to have somebody shouting at them about
going to Hell, right after they pulled an all-nighter studying and then failed the test anyway. The
religious intolerance is present because many of the students that are being yelled toward are not a part
of the same religion as he is. If a student doesn’t believe in his God, Jesus, a Heaven and Hell, ect., and
brings that to the religious nut’s attention, he is unwilling to listen to them. He will just yell back with
“you need to find Jesus, or else you’re gonna die and go to Hell,” or something to that effect.
“Christians” who behave in this way should consider what Bob Chell, professor at South Dakota
University had to say about intolerance: "In the Bible, the ones who were most certain about what they
were doing were the ones who stoned the prophets" (Robinson).
What most people fail to realize (or just refuse to acknowledge), is that there is also a great
amount of religious intolerance directed toward the religious nut. During the group arguments that I
alluded to before, I have witnessed many times when students would just shout rude things at him,
often having nothing to do with religion or anything that he was saying. I have seen others that would
ask him a controversial question (about gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and then yell profanities at him
when he answered with his honest opinion (not always in a disrespectful or confrontational way). I
think all students would be quick to point out the intolerance of the religious nut, but many need to take
the time to also examine their own intolerances.
Kirkbride 5
Even though many people do not take religious intolerance to be a serious issue, it can be seen
through these examples and many more that it is all around us. Sometimes the intolerance may be
justifiable (not necessarily right), other times it may be nothing more than an act of hatred. Still other
situations may be filled with intolerance that goes completely unnoticed. I think John Shattuck,
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. State Department for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, said it best
when he said that "ethnic and religious conflict remain the most intractable and dangerous problems in
the world today" (Robinson). The most important thing that we can do as members of a community is
make ourselves aware of the religious conflict and intolerance around us and strive to put a stop to it.
Kirkbride 6
Works Cited
Cincinnati.com. 21 December 2005. 20 November 2013. <http://news.cincinnati.com/>.
Evans, Brad. Police Forced to Withdraw from Prayer Walks After Lawsuit Threat. 4 November 2013. 20
November 2013. <http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/>.
Robinson, B.A. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 19 February 2002. 21 November 2013.
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/>.
wikispaces. 20 December 2005. 20 November 2013. <www.wikispaces.com>.