3.2.1 - Dialogue with ethics: tolerance and religious freedom

Freedom, conscience and moral restraint

The ethical issue is not simply "Should Buddhists be nice to other religions?" AQA is asking how Buddhism responds to a public moral problem: in a society containing many religions and non-religious beliefs, how much freedom should people have to express their beliefs, and where should limits be drawn?

Under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom to hold or change religion or belief is protected without the qualification applied to manifestation. Restrictions on manifestation must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for public safety, public order, health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others; proportionality is part of this test. A judgement that speech is morally unskillful does not by itself establish a lawful reason to ban it.

So a strong answer keeps two questions together: what should society allow? and how should Buddhists speak, protest and respond?

Buddhist Resources For Tolerance

Buddhist ethics gives several reasons to support tolerance and freedom of religious expression. These reasons are not identical to secular rights theory, but they can work alongside it.

First, ahimsa, or non-harming, makes hostility towards other religious communities morally dangerous. If intolerance is rooted in hatred, fear or delusion, it is not merely socially unpleasant; it is unwholesome. It can deepen suffering for both the speaker and the target.

Second, metta and karuna, loving-kindness and compassion, support a generous attitude towards people whose beliefs differ from one's own. A Buddhist does not have to agree with another religion's truth claims in order to treat its followers as beings who seek happiness and avoid suffering.

Third, right speech gives a direct Buddhist response to religious expression. In SN 45.8, right speech is explained as avoiding false, divisive, harsh and pointless speech. This does not mean Buddhists must never criticise other views. It means criticism should be truthful, careful, non-hateful and aimed at reducing delusion rather than winning status.

Fourth, the Kalama Sutta is useful because it begins with competing religious teachers. The Buddha does not tell the Kalamas simply to suppress disagreement or accept every claim as equally true. He advises testing teachings by whether they are skillful, blameworthy or blameless, and whether they lead to harm and suffering or to welfare and happiness. This supports open enquiry, but also ethical judgement.

The dialogue with ethics is therefore balanced. Buddhism can support a culture where different beliefs may be expressed, heard and examined. At the same time, Buddhism does not treat expression as morally neutral. Speech is action; it has intention, consequences and karmic significance.

Ashoka And Public Respect

Edict 12 of Ashoka is an important source for this topic because it gives a public model of respect between religious communities. Ashoka was a Buddhist-influenced ruler, not the Buddha himself, so the edict should not be treated as scripture. Even so, AQA names Edict 12 in the wider Buddhism pluralism topic, and it is useful for dialogue with ethical studies.

Ashoka is especially useful because the edict does more than say "be polite." It links respect for other communities with the health of one's own tradition. If a Buddhist praises Buddhism by attacking others carelessly, Ashoka's logic is that Buddhism itself is damaged.

This matters for AO2. A critic might say Ashoka is too ancient and royal to settle a modern rights debate. That criticism has force: Edict 12 is not a modern democratic law. However, it still gives a Buddhist-linked precedent for public restraint, interfaith listening and the idea that religious confidence need not become suppression of others.

Limits Of Expression

Tolerance is not the same as allowing absolutely everything. Ethical studies often asks where freedom should end: hate speech, incitement to violence, coercive proselytising, intimidation, discrimination, or practices that harm others all test the boundary.

Buddhism has resources for drawing limits, but those limits work differently from a legal code. A Buddhist response may ask:

• Is the expression rooted in greed, hatred or delusion?
• Does it cause avoidable suffering?
• Is it false, divisive or harsh?
• Does it encourage violence, contempt or dehumanisation?
• Could protest or disagreement be expressed with compassion and restraint?

This means Buddhism can defend freedom of religious expression while still criticising harmful uses of that freedom. For example, a Buddhist may defend a minority community's right to worship, teach and wear religious symbols. The same Buddhist may reject public speech that dehumanises another group or encourages violence.