Do you regard these concepts as virtually synonymous or distinct in kind?
Often, I find that people conflate the two as if they were the same. Exclusivist religions and people who hold exclusivist views, are deemed to be "intolerant" whereas inclusive or syncretic belief systems are deemed to be tolerant.
Looking at history, however, leads me to question if this is always the case. Indeed, exclusivism and intolerance have often coincided - one need only think of the Spanish Inquisition, or the suppression of religion in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia. In these cases, Catholicism and Communism were enforced by people with exclusivist beliefs and motivated by intolerance. Likewise, inclusivist religions have proved very tolerant of opposing beliefs, as Indian civilization has proved to be.
But there have equally been many inclusivist-minded religions that have proved remarkably intolerant, and many exclusivist people have been tolerant of views they personally abhor.
The Roman Imperial religion is sometimes depicted to be tolerant. Certainly, the worldview was inclusive - in that, so long as you sacrificed to the Roman gods, you could supplement it with as many other deities, rituals and temples as you liked. The Romans were highly syncretic. But they actually weren't very tolerant at all of people who didn't want to threaten the rights of believers in the Roman state creed to sacrifice animals and worship the Divine Caesar but who personally voiced their "unbelief" in the traditional gods.
In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote about this:
In the early third century one magistrate told Christians "I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion." ("The World of Late Antiquity", Peter Brown, p. 17, Thames and Hudson, 1971). In 258, the Roman magistrate Galerius Maximus executed a Christian Carthiginian bishop with the following decree:
The Romans, in point of fact, for all their inclusivity hadn't learned the cardinal virtue of modern liberalism: to respect freedom of conscience and tolerate views critical of their traditional rites and pantheon of deities.
The atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, an expert on late antiquity and early Christianity, explained this irony in a recent book, in relation to the first Christian Emperor Constantine and his famous Edict of Milan in 312:
Libanius, an avowed pagan and advocate of the traditional Roman rites, urged the precedent of Constantine himself for toleration, noting approvingly that Constantine “made absolutely no alteration in the traditional forms of [pagan] worship” (Oration 30.6).
Modern liberal democracy is itself, in a sense, "exclusivist". Liberal democrats believe, with deep conviction that constitutional democracies with limited governments and recognition of human rights, are superior to authoritarian regimes. Yet it is paradoxically the most tolerant political philosophy that humankind has so far conceived, despite believing in its own fundamental moral supremacy.
Often, I find that people conflate the two as if they were the same. Exclusivist religions and people who hold exclusivist views, are deemed to be "intolerant" whereas inclusive or syncretic belief systems are deemed to be tolerant.
Looking at history, however, leads me to question if this is always the case. Indeed, exclusivism and intolerance have often coincided - one need only think of the Spanish Inquisition, or the suppression of religion in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia. In these cases, Catholicism and Communism were enforced by people with exclusivist beliefs and motivated by intolerance. Likewise, inclusivist religions have proved very tolerant of opposing beliefs, as Indian civilization has proved to be.
But there have equally been many inclusivist-minded religions that have proved remarkably intolerant, and many exclusivist people have been tolerant of views they personally abhor.
The Roman Imperial religion is sometimes depicted to be tolerant. Certainly, the worldview was inclusive - in that, so long as you sacrificed to the Roman gods, you could supplement it with as many other deities, rituals and temples as you liked. The Romans were highly syncretic. But they actually weren't very tolerant at all of people who didn't want to threaten the rights of believers in the Roman state creed to sacrifice animals and worship the Divine Caesar but who personally voiced their "unbelief" in the traditional gods.
In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote about this:
How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?
In the early third century one magistrate told Christians "I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion." ("The World of Late Antiquity", Peter Brown, p. 17, Thames and Hudson, 1971). In 258, the Roman magistrate Galerius Maximus executed a Christian Carthiginian bishop with the following decree:
You have long lived an irreligious life, and have drawn together a number of men bound by an unlawful association, and professed yourself an open enemy to the gods and the religion of Rome; and the pious, most sacred and august Emperors ... have endeavoured in vain to bring you back to conformity with their religious observances; whereas therefore you have been apprehended as principal and ringleader in these infamous crimes, you shall be made an example to those whom you have wickedly associated with you; the authority of law shall be ratified in your blood." He then read the sentence of the court from a written tablet: "It is the sentence of this court that Thascius Cyprianus be executed with the sword."
The Romans, in point of fact, for all their inclusivity hadn't learned the cardinal virtue of modern liberalism: to respect freedom of conscience and tolerate views critical of their traditional rites and pantheon of deities.
The atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, an expert on late antiquity and early Christianity, explained this irony in a recent book, in relation to the first Christian Emperor Constantine and his famous Edict of Milan in 312:
What emerged from the meeting [of Constantine] was the so-called Edict of Milan...
In summing up the rule of Constantine, it is simplest to begin by again emphasizing what Constantine did not do, contrary to what many people have thought and some scholars have argued. He did not make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire...it was not his duty to proscribe pagan practices, shut down large numbers of temples throughout the empire, or prohibit the practice of sacrifice, even though he personally detested it.
On the contrary, Constantine had no mission to convert the masses of pagans who continued to follow traditional religious practices. He remained remarkably open to those of other persuasions, especially to those who, like his father, embraced some kind of pagan henotheism. He was content to practice Christianity himself, to support and promote the activities of the church...
On the contrary, as Princeton historian Peter Brown has so elegantly argued in numerous publications, pagans and Christians into the fourth and fifth centuries by and large accommodated one another and generally managed to work, function, and live together. This was certainly the case at the higher reaches of imperial government
It should be clear from everything I have said that religious intolerance is not the same thing as exclusivity. Exclusivity involves the commitment to adhere to only one particular set of religious beliefs and practices. Throughout history, large numbers of people have held exclusive views and commitments without insisting they had the one and only path to truth. In Roman antiquity most Jews were both exclusivist when it came to themselves and tolerant of those outside their Jewish community.
Intolerance is a different matter. It is the principled rejection of other beliefs and practices as wrong, dangerous, or both. One might unreflectively consider intolerance merely a particularly virulent offshoot of strict exclusivity, but it patently is not that, for the simple reason that adherents of more inclusive traditions such as Roman paganism were also sometimes intolerant, as the worshipers of Bacchus and the followers of Christ both discovered with exquisite clarity.
Throughout history there have been millions and millions of sincere Christians who have adopted a live-and-let-live policy toward people of other faiths. Constantine was one of them, even if he did happen to be the most powerful figure in the early history of the religion...
Constantine insisted explicitly on toleration for those who choose to continue practicing pagan cults:
Now, Constantine and the early Christian apologists - such as Tertullian and Lactantius - were "exclusivists". They believed passionately in the moral superiority of their worldview over that of the beliefs of the 'pagan' Graeco-Romans. Constantine himself exclaimed in one of his letters: "I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I declare to be that which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the most holy God" (Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians (333)). But unlike their exclusivist successors during the Spanish Inquisition, they passionately believed that people had a natural right to hold divergent - and indeed mutually critical - religious beliefs, and condemned attempts to enforce conformity with their faith.In summing up the rule of Constantine, it is simplest to begin by again emphasizing what Constantine did not do, contrary to what many people have thought and some scholars have argued. He did not make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire...it was not his duty to proscribe pagan practices, shut down large numbers of temples throughout the empire, or prohibit the practice of sacrifice, even though he personally detested it.
On the contrary, Constantine had no mission to convert the masses of pagans who continued to follow traditional religious practices. He remained remarkably open to those of other persuasions, especially to those who, like his father, embraced some kind of pagan henotheism. He was content to practice Christianity himself, to support and promote the activities of the church...
On the contrary, as Princeton historian Peter Brown has so elegantly argued in numerous publications, pagans and Christians into the fourth and fifth centuries by and large accommodated one another and generally managed to work, function, and live together. This was certainly the case at the higher reaches of imperial government
It should be clear from everything I have said that religious intolerance is not the same thing as exclusivity. Exclusivity involves the commitment to adhere to only one particular set of religious beliefs and practices. Throughout history, large numbers of people have held exclusive views and commitments without insisting they had the one and only path to truth. In Roman antiquity most Jews were both exclusivist when it came to themselves and tolerant of those outside their Jewish community.
Intolerance is a different matter. It is the principled rejection of other beliefs and practices as wrong, dangerous, or both. One might unreflectively consider intolerance merely a particularly virulent offshoot of strict exclusivity, but it patently is not that, for the simple reason that adherents of more inclusive traditions such as Roman paganism were also sometimes intolerant, as the worshipers of Bacchus and the followers of Christ both discovered with exquisite clarity.
Throughout history there have been millions and millions of sincere Christians who have adopted a live-and-let-live policy toward people of other faiths. Constantine was one of them, even if he did happen to be the most powerful figure in the early history of the religion...
Constantine insisted explicitly on toleration for those who choose to continue practicing pagan cults:
Let no one use what he has received by inner conviction as a means to harm his neighbor. What each has seen and understood, he must use, if possible, to help the other; but if that is impossible, the matter should be dropped. It is one thing to take on willingly the contest for immortality, quite another to enforce it with sanctions. (Life of Constantine 2.6)
Constantine clearly and directly opposes the use of sanctions to enforce religious practices on those who are unwilling, or to disallow practices.
Libanius, an avowed pagan and advocate of the traditional Roman rites, urged the precedent of Constantine himself for toleration, noting approvingly that Constantine “made absolutely no alteration in the traditional forms of [pagan] worship” (Oration 30.6).
Modern liberal democracy is itself, in a sense, "exclusivist". Liberal democrats believe, with deep conviction that constitutional democracies with limited governments and recognition of human rights, are superior to authoritarian regimes. Yet it is paradoxically the most tolerant political philosophy that humankind has so far conceived, despite believing in its own fundamental moral supremacy.
Last edited: