*THE DANGERS OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE TO A HOST COMMUNITY: A REFLECTION FOR ÒKÈÒGÙN AND FUNATO, OKEHO*

*Favour Adéwọyin,*

January 2, 2026. 

This article on religious intolerance becomes necessary because a problem ignored is a wound continually reopened. As the Yorùbá wisdom aptly warns, "bí ìná ọ́ tán l’áṣọ, ẹ̀jẹ̀ kìí tán l’ẹ́ẹ̀kán" — so long as lice remain in a garment, blood will never cease to stain the fingers. Religious intolerance is such a lingering infestation: when left unaddressed, it perpetuates pain, distrust, and recurring violence, no matter how often we wipe our hands and pretend cleanliness. This article therefore opens not as a mere commentary, but as a moral and civic intervention — an urgent call to confront a corrosive menace that undermines social cohesion, sabotages development, and erodes the very foundations of justice, peace, and shared humanity.

Before proceeding to define religious intolerance and to engage in deeper analysis, it is important to state, without equivocation, that there is nothing inherently harmful in pure religion. The crisis we confront today does not arise from religion in its pristine and uncontaminated form, but from its corruption — its perversion and debasement into a tool of division, manipulation, and self-interest. It is this adulterated version, widely practiced and loudly defended, that has sown discord among us.

Although a fuller exposition on the distinction between pure and perverse religion is best reserved for another discourse, it suffices here to note a fundamental contrast: pure religion is anchored in spirituality, while perverse religion is obsessed with rituality. Pure religion pursues genuine love, moral integrity, and the selfless practice of good; perverse religion, by contrast, thrives on façades — cosmetic piety, hollow performances, and counterfeit devotion devoid of transformative power.

Little wonder, then, that perverse religion has been aptly described as “ever learning, yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth; having the form of godliness, but denying its power.” Such religion is loud in appearance but empty in substance — rich in symbols, yet bankrupt in spirit. 

They may parade revered religious identities and adorn themselves with sacred labels, yet the critical question remains: do they truly embody the essence of those faiths in the content of their character and the fruitfulness of their relationships? Christianity is not authenticated by nomenclature but by Christlike virtues reflected in conduct, just as Islam is not validated by mere profession but by behaviour measured against the moral barometers of the Qur’an. When beliefs fail to translate into integrity, compassion, justice, and responsibility, religious identity degenerates into empty symbolism — loud in declaration, but silent in substance.

Now is the moment to engage the subject itself, beginning where all meaningful inquiry must begin — with definition. For what is left undefined remains elusive, and what cannot be clearly defined can neither be properly identified nor responsibly addressed. To understand religious intolerance, therefore, we must first name it with precision.

Religious intolerance is the unwillingness or refusal to respect, accept, or allow the beliefs, practices, or existence of people who follow a different religion (or no religion at all). 

Today, Christians view Muslims with suspicion, and Muslims return the same gaze, even though the very Holy Books they profess speak unequivocally of love, peace, and the dignity of the other. Since this unfortunate imbroglio began, we have witnessed a flurry of defences — serial rebuttals from the Fasasis and anonymous epistles from Christians, each rushing to shield a faith that needs no human defence. This raises troubling questions: why are we busy defending religions that ultimately point us to the same God and His Kingdom? Why the anonymity, the hostility, the anxiety? Can we not see that the deeper crisis lies not in doctrine, but in our attitudes — Christians against Muslims, and even Christians against fellow Christians or Muslims against fellow Muslims?

Why do we descend into needless criticism and petty hostility, dismantling ourselves, corroding our society, and sabotaging the very institutions and values we are meant to build and preserve?

Permit me to say clearly that this artcle considers the danger of religious intolerance as it relates to the newly established Federal University of Agriculture and Technology, Òkehò (FUNATO). One thing we must all know and embrace is that the establishment of the Federal University of Agriculture and Technology, Okeho (FUNATO) is not merely an institutional achievement; it is a historic opportunity, a generational gift, and a collective trust bestowed. on the people of Òkèògùn. 

Furthermore, we must also know and embrace that universities are engines of progress, centres of excellence, and sanctuaries of ideas. They thrive on diversity, merit, intellectual freedom, and the uncompromising pursuit of truth. Any force that undermines these values — especially religious intolerance — poses a grave danger not only to the university itself but to the future of the host community.

Religious intolerance, when allowed to creep into public affairs, poisons reason, weakens unity, and replaces competence with sentiment. In a university setting, it is particularly destructive. A university is not a pulpit, nor is it a sectarian enclave; it is a universal space where knowledge must reign supreme over creed, tribe, or sentiment. Once religious considerations begin to dictate appointments, admissions, leadership, or policy directions, the institution is quietly set on the path of decline. What should be a citadel of excellence risks becoming a shelter for mediocrity.

The consequences of jeopardising FUNATO on the altar of religious bias are far-reaching. When merit is sacrificed for mediocrity, excellence for average or substandard considerations, the university loses credibility. Academic standards fall, research output dwindles, and the institution becomes unattractive to top scholars, serious students, funding agencies, and global partnerships. In time, what was meant to uplift the community becomes a symbol of wasted opportunity. The host community, rather than benefiting from innovation, employment, prestige, and development, inherits stagnation and regret.

Beyond institutional damage, religious intolerance fractures communal harmony. Òkèògùn has long been known for peaceful coexistence among Christians, Muslims, and traditional worshippers. To import intolerance into a federal institution sited within such a community is to invite suspicion, resentment, and needless division. A university should unite a people around progress; intolerance divides them along dangerous fault lines.

At this juncture, it is worth asking some sobering questions — questions that appeal to common sense and everyday reality. When you board a public transport vehicle, do you first ask the driver his religion before trusting him with your life? If you were to fly in an aircraft, would you insist on knowing the pilot’s faith before take-off, or would you care more about competence, training, and experience? In the hospital, when your life hangs in the balance, do you ask the doctor whether he shares your religion, or do you ask whether he is qualified, skilled, and capable? If competence matters in transport, aviation, and medicine — where human lives are directly at stake — why should it matter less in a university, where the future of generations is being shaped?

The truth is simple and inescapable: development does not recognise religion; excellence does not wear a sectarian badge; competence has no denomination. Nations, communities, and institutions that rise are those that place the right people in the right positions, guided by merit, vision, and integrity. Those that fall are those that allow sentiment, intolerance, and exclusion to override reason.

FUNATO must therefore be protected as a shared heritage, not captured as a sectarian trophy. Its success will lift Okeho and Òkèògùn; its failure will burden them all — regardless of religious affiliation. The community must rise above narrow considerations and embrace tolerance, inclusivity, and merit as guiding principles. In doing so, they will not only safeguard the university but also secure lasting development, peace, and pride for generations yet unborn.

A university given and embraced in unity must not be destroyed by intolerance. The choice before the community is clear: the path of excellence through tolerance, or the road to decline paved with prejudice. History will remember which one was chosen.

In conclusion, religious intelligence calls us to pursue merit, fairness, justice, equity, equality, and inclusivity with unwavering conviction, yet to do so with wisdom, restraint, and strategic sensitivity. While silence in the face of tyranny and oppression is neither virtuous nor acceptable, confrontation devoid of prudence can be self-defeating. True wisdom lies in knowing when to speak boldly and when to tread softly, when to resist firmly and when to accommodate patiently. It is this disciplined balance — rooted in understanding, tolerance, and foresight — that sustains peace, strengthens social cohesion, and ultimately unlocks enduring progress, development, and collective success.

*Pst. Favour Adéwoyin*

Community Leader and Development Advocate.