• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Exclusivity vs Intolerance?

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
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:


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:

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.
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.

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:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's more a generalisation thing.
Generally speaking exclusive religions don't tend to tolerate people "stepping out of line."
Conversely inclusive religions just shrug and let people do their own thing.
There are always exceptions of course and many people on both sides display levels of tolerance and intolerance.

That said its not really the "inclusive syncretic" religions constantly stamping their feet publicly over things like SSM or transgender issues or what have you. So as much as I hate to say this, as I personally know far more tolerant "exclusives" than "inclusives" there is kind of a bit of smoke. Just saying.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
To me it comes down to motivation. And in considering the OP, I switched it in my mind from religion to something else: Science fiction fan clubs. Let's say we have a Star Trek fan club and someone wants to join who is an Orville fan and considers The Orville a Trek successor.

The Trek Fan Club could be exclusivist and say only Trek or inclusive and say Orville is close enough. Both are valid choices for a fan club to make.

Intolerance in this example would be forbidding a female Trek fan from joining based on her gender.

Of course, when we get to religion it's more fraught since some groups believe "my way or you're going to hell". To me the principle is the same - those who don't believe in hell, for example, can be excluded based on belief. But to exclude, say, white men from a religious group based on the color of his skin would be intolerance based on skin color.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Citation needed. Really, India hasn't proven to be so "very" tolerant.

It certainly was under the third century BC Buddhist Emperor Ashoka, of the Maurya Empire.

In one of his famous rock inscriptions, he wrote:

King Piyadasi (Ashoka) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways...

Although to be accurate, Buddhism can also be rather exclusivist: right view is very important to the Noble Eightfold Path. Ashoka was extremely open to the existence and dialogue between competing sects which may have preached wrong view from a Buddhist POV.

Prior to Aurangzeb, the Mughals were also tolerant. So, I would say there have been a lot of tolerant Indian dynasties down the millenia, and this is reflected in the incredible religious diversity of the subcontinent - Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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:


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 1312:


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...but 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.
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.

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.
Would you accept that pagan Roman empire was significantly more tolerant than the Christian kingdoms that came after, or even its direct Christian successor state- the Byzantine Empire?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
It certainly was under the third century BC Buddhist Emperor Ashoka, of the Maurya Empire.

In one of his famous rock inscriptions, he wrote:

King Piyadasi (Ashoka) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways...

One must not exalt one’s creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others Without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.


Although to be accurate, Buddhism can also be rather exclusivist: right view is very important to the Noble Eightfold Path. Ashoka was extremely open to the existence and dialogue between competing sects which may have preached wrong view from a Buddhist POV.
Since then there has been a lot of things happening.
Prior to Aurangzeb, the Mughals were also tolerant.
Mughals are tolerant? Okay maybe they were sometimes for medieval standards! But, let's not ignore the fact of the brutality of the Muslim conquests of India in the first place.
So, I would say there have been a lot of tolerant Indian dynasties down the millenia, and this is reflected in the incredible religious diversity of the subcontinent - Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims.
Sure there is religious diversity in India; but notice that Pakistan used to be part of India and broke away due to ... religious differences. Other Muslim Indians engage in acts of terrorism for their religion. And being a Christian myself I am informed that there is persecution by Hindus of religious minorities(including Christians) in India and it's on the rise.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
intolerance is a variation by degree of tolerance. You have to consider some thing 'different' enough or alien to your thinking to tolerate it. Intolerance is the point of tolerance where you are not willing to tolerate.

Exclusivity is the point that you consider yourself exclusively 'right' and others are in degrees wrong, but nonetheless 'wrong.' and the basis of the need for tolerance, as in most cases intolerance and alienation, and often leads to violence.

The greater the exclusive, or being right, a claim the more likely you are wrong.

Constantine and the influence of his mother was only the first step in establishing Christianity as the State Religion. Christianity at this time of Rome was an exclusive belief system. It progressively became the state religion and intolerant of pagan and other religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I find it totally unreasonable, and not reality to be intolerant of people whom are different.

Exclusivity and intolerance go hand in hand but they are not the same.

There are religions that are exclusive and tolerant.

Sounds like a case by case scenario.

Maybe living a quality of life that is worthy makes people more tolerant regardless of religion. That and fearing the laws of the land.

Theres no substitute for the desire for genuine justice though. Justice dont discriminate, and holds everyone accountable to fairness and blamelessness regardless of beliefs, and differences. Thats a high standard for many humans.

Exclusivity is a typical thing in society. Exclusivity can be very tolerant.

Everyone has their circles where people are on the inside and people on the outside. Exclusivity aint necessarily bad in discretion.

Intolerance leads to rising tensions that lead to violence.

This topic is all about discernment and discretion and deserve.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Would you accept that pagan Roman empire was significantly more tolerant than the Christian kingdoms that came after, or even its direct Christian successor state- the Byzantine Empire?

To a good extent, yes, because many of the successor states failed to follow Constantine's policy of tolerance, unfortunately. The Byzantines were especially intolerant under Justinian, Reconquista Spain was dreadfully intolerant after unification during it's Inquisition.

But under Constantine's reign, his regime was far more tolerant than either the pagan Roman state had been or a number of Christian states would prove to be subsequently.

Oddly enough, Constantine was canonized in the Christian East, yet they never adopted his religious policy.

However, there have been very tolerant states in medieval and early modern Europe as well, such as Norman Sicily:

Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture - Wikipedia

The English historian John Julius Norwich remarked of the Kingdom of Sicily:

"Norman Sicily stood forth in Europe...as an example of tolerance and enlightenment, a lesson in the respect that every man should feel for those whose blood and beliefs happen to differ from his own."

John Julius Norwich[21]

During Roger II's reign, the Kingdom of Sicily became increasingly characterized by its multi-ethnic composition and unusual religious tolerance.[22] Catholic Normans, Langobards and native Sicilians, Muslim Arabs, and Orthodox Byzantine Greeks existed in a relative harmony for this time period,[23][24] and Roger II was known to have planned for the establishment of an Empire that would have encompassed Fatimid Egyptand the Crusader states in the Levant up until his death in 1154.[25] One of the greatest geographical treatises of the Middle Ages was written for Roger II by the Andalusianscholar Muhammad al-Idrisi, and entitled Kitab Rudjdjar ("The book of Roger").[26]

At the end of the 12th century, the population of Sicily is estimated to have been up to one-third Byzantine Greek speaking, with the remainder speaking Latin or Vulgar Latindialects brought from mainland Italy (Gallo-Italic languages and Neapolitan language), Norman and Sicilian Arabic.[27] Although the language of the court was Old Norman or Old French (Langue d'oïl), all royal edicts were written in the language of the people they were addressed to: Latin, Byzantine Greek, Arabic, or Hebrew.[28] Roger's royal mantel, used for his coronation (and also used for the coronation of Frederick II), bore an inscription in Arabic with the Hijri date of 528 (1133–1134).

Islamic authors marvelled at the forbearance of the Norman kings:

"They [the Muslims] were treated kindly, and they were protected, even against the Franks. Because of that, they had great love for king Roger."

Ibn al-Athir[29]

Interactions continued with the succeeding Norman kings, for example under William II of Sicily, as attested by the Spanish-Arab geographer Ibn Jubair who landed in the island after returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1184. To his surprise, Ibn Jubair enjoyed a very warm reception by the Norman Christians. He was further surprised to find that even some Christians spoke Arabic and that several government officials were Muslim:[26]

"The attitude of the king is really extraordinary. His attitude towards the Muslims is perfect: he gives them employment, he choses his officers among them..."

Ibn Jubair, Rihla.[30]


And the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth - Wikipedia

Religion

Official:

Roman Catholicism
Minority:

It was one of the largest[4][5] and most populous countries of 16th– to 17th-century Europe. At its largest territorial extent, in the early 17th century, the Commonwealth covered almost 400,000 square miles (1,000,000 km2)[6] and sustained a multi-ethnic population of 11 million.[7]...

The Union possessed many features unique among contemporary states. Its political system was characterized by strict checks upon monarchical power. These checks were enacted by a legislature (sejm) controlled by the nobility (szlachta). This idiosyncratic system was a precursor to modern concepts of democracy,[8] constitutional monarchy,[9][10][11] and federation.[12] Although the two component states of the Commonwealth were formally equal, Poland was the dominant partner in the union.[13]

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was marked by high levels of ethnic diversity and by relative religious tolerance, guaranteed by the Warsaw Confederation Act 1573;...

Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century. Complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.


[99] The Commonwealth was a place where the most radical religious sects, trying to escape persecution in other countries of the Christian world, sought refuge.[100] In 1561 Bonifacio d’Oria, a religious exile living in Poland, wrote of his adopted country's virtues to a colleague back in Italy:

"You could live here in accordance with your ideas and preferences, in great, even the greatest freedoms, including writing and publishing. No one is a censor here."[23]

Again, Catholic Christianity was the official state religion in both these polities but not of the Spanish Inquisition variety. Exclusivist but tolerant of difference for the most part.
 
Last edited:

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with not believing all opionions are created equal.

I disagree. Ignoring dumb arguments about self-inconsistency. Then consider my reasons why opinions are equal.

Nobody's opinion is wrong. Nobody's opinion is a lie. How do you know what other people know otherwise you might be able to see why someone else holds a different opinion than your own. The whole point of democracy is to appreciate someone else's opinion as being possibly the right way.

Take slavery in the Bible. We would not have the 13th Amendment if someone do not consider opposing opinions to slavery as being equal:

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Many people still believe slavery is man's proper way of being. That men crave leadership over fellowship. And man's natural state is obedience to authority and an authoritarian state based on monarchy:


"Kneel!!! Is not this simpler. Is this not your natural state."

I disagree with your opinion there is nothing wrong with not believing all opinions are created equal. In the same way I think it's a dumb argument that the only way to support intolerance is by being tolerant of people who want to be intolerance. Dumb arguments about self-inconsistency have to be counted differently. The Golden Rule supersedes all arguments about self-inconsistency.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
I find it totally unreasonable, and not reality to be intolerant of people whom are different.

Exclusivity and intolerance go hand in hand but they are not the same.

There are religions that are exclusive and tolerant.

This is a good point but there are also religions that are exclusive, extremely intolerant, and violent. Take the Dominionists currently running our country for example. The Dominionists have absolutely no tolerance or respect for opposing opinions. People with opposing opinions are just wrong, misled, or possessed by Satan. Dominionists believe they have a divine right to rule this country. And that they've been chosen by God directly to be rich and powerful.

Dominion theology - Wikipedia

I recently watch some commentary on separation of church and state from Bill Cooper. Not exactly my favorite person but this is a terrific speech on what really holds this country together starting around the 4 minute mark and onward:


As I said, I'm not big fan of Bill Cooper but that's a pretty good speech.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
This is a good point but there are also religions that are exclusive, extremely intolerant, and violent. Take the Dominionists currently running our country for example. The Dominionists have absolutely no tolerance or respect for opposing opinions. People with opposing opinions are just wrong, misled, or possessed by Satan. Dominionists believe they have a divine right to rule this country. And that they've been chosen by God directly to be rich and powerful.

Dominion theology - Wikipedia

I recently watch some commentary on separation of church and state from Bill Cooper. Not exactly my favorite person but this is a terrific speech on what really holds this country together starting around the 4 minute mark and onward:


As I said, I'm not big fan of Bill Cooper but that's a pretty good speech.

I cant deny that there are those kinds of religions out there and they do want their theocracy to moralize people their way and prohibit people's ways of living.

Freedom from harm is something everyone has to fight for, or stand to lose more and more freedom.

So the question is what kind of freedom does everybody desire to have?

Where be the common ground of all?

Its a country built on majority rule, but also carefully checked, and defined powers with limitations.

Its always a fight, and i think the Constitution is intended to make power a great challenge, and a great fight.

Unrestrained, and unchecked power is the thing to fight against for the sake of freedom.

We will always have morality issues, and struggles. Id hate to lose individual rights.

One thing i myself am sure of, not everybody has the same conscience.

What unites people i think is the quality of life individuals can have, the prosperity, and rights of the individual. The relative safety and security many people enjoy. When you stand to lose something you love, you fight for it.

I wish more people could be free under the laws of individual rights.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I watched some discussion with Bart Ehrman, he seemed to not like being called atheist. I think he's agnostic.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you regard these concepts as virtually synonymous or distinct in kind?

I think you’ve done a very job of exploring the differences between exclusivity and intolerance with reference to history. While I agree with the distinction I think there is still some correlation between the two concepts. I personally find it easy to relate to people of different Faiths knowing what we share in common. If I believed their beliefs were fundamentally in error then it would be much more difficult.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
For me, it's that exclusivity without good reason is intolerant; it's prejuducial almost by definition.

In a religious context, whether exclusivity is justified often comes down to whether the religious group is powerful or marginalized.

I have sympathy for a religious minority that stays away from outsiders because there's a long history of outsiders committing massacres against them.

OTOH, I have no sympathy at all for the religious majority that carried out those massacres to wipe out competition to their "one true faith."

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.
I don't see it as paradoxical at all. If what we're after is maximal freedom, then it makes sense to take issue with people who would use their freedom to deny freedom to others.

It's like designing an airplane: even though the goal is for an aircraft to be as light as possible, this doesn't mean that the best possible airplane would have zero mass.
 
Top