Protection of Liberalism - International and Indian trends

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji, good post !

I do have thoughts in relation to each of your points - but the only areas I see us not being fundamentally on the same page seem to be my points # 1 & 2. Let me take a further stab at getting to common ground with you on these areas-

Before diving into the nitty-gritties, some basics that would be good to get out of the way first-

1. I have no objection to the act of conversion from one faith to another, which is a basic human freedom
2. I am NOT against the right of any individual to hold exclusivist beliefs if they choose to do so on their own accord
3. I would be chary about any form of restriction on freedom of speech and expression, whether by means of hate speech laws or blasphemy laws or any other grounds whatsoever

Having said this, the grounds on which I would find exclusivist statements from preachers to a public audience, to be objectionable and amounting to criminal culpability, can be two-fold. They can either be disallowed on the basis of

1. Hate speech / blasphemy law regulation that disbars any insult to the symbols of another religion, in a public congregation or via dissemination through the media, OR
2. As a restriction on the freedom of spiritual enquiry that I have defined as a basic tenet of liberalism on the first post of this thread

To a large extent it is about where we set the trap to catch Abrahamics. I am saying we attack where thought meets action, while you are saying we should attack where individual belief (in exclusivism) meets propagation of the same into some collective.

At the moment Indian Constitution provides for

• Right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion;
• Right to freedom of speech and expression

So in a way, something you consider to be acceptable as a private belief (exclusivism) cannot be propagated to others. In fact, we are curtailing the above two rights.

Of course an effort to curb the propagation of exclusivist thinking, begs the question, what is wrong with it. Why would that bother someone? Why would it bother you, if a group of people believe in something, in exclusivist thinking? It is simply their PoV. If the system itself allows plurality and all the rights, then this group is just one among many, with its own quirks and eccentricities.

I don't think you need any convincing yourself regarding the second point. Your own post Basic Freedom of Spiritual Quest: External Assessment captures this concept brilliantly and in greater detail than I could possibly have.

I would personally prefer that the criminal culpability flows from the second tenet above. It is much cleaner.....and since we don't need any hate speech laws specifically for this purpose - we can do away with the entire concept of 'hate speech regulation' other than for actual threats of violence.

A good analogy for culpability under the second tenet would be the equivalent freedom on the economic side. Freedom of entrepreneurship and 'maximising the freedom of choice' for consumers is a basic tenet of capitalist business. And yet, all economies agree on the need to establish the equivalent of a 'Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act'. What does this act say? - if a business uses 'internal mechanisms' and 'restrictive trade practices' to artificially curb the range of choice that a consumer has - then that amounts to a violation. And the penalty for the violation can, depending on severity, range from fines all the way to complete cancellation of the license of the firm to operate.

So, when a religion uses mechanisms such as 'All Gods other than ---- are False' or 'There is ONLY one way to salvation' these need to be recognized as artificial barriers that place curbs on the range of choices available to end consumers of that religion. The culpability is NOT with the consumer - it is with the salesmen of that religion (ie the preachers). So, taking the analogy further - it is perfectly fine if I as a consumer of toothpaste believe Colgate to be better than any other and if I want to use only Colgate and not look at any other paste for the rest of my life - but if Colgate decided to market its product using unethical and restrictive trade practices then the company would be culpable. So, basically this restriction on preachers and proseletyzers usage of language would hold for any public gathering where they preach (including inside their own churches / mosques) or if they use these fraudulent messages in the act of selling their product (ie during proseletyzation).

The only small drawback to using the second tenet above is that there is no legal precedence yet - but that is certainly not an insurmountable challenge once the directive principle is clearly established.

Freedom of Spiritual Quest can be understood along various axis:

1. External - whether the Right of Spiritual Quest of others is being restricted.
2. Analysis of Doctrine - whether within the religion itself, there is insufficient freedom to question doctrine.
3. Synthesis of Doctrine - whether within the religion itself, there is insufficient freedom to look for alternate paths or variations. This is about the right of some individual of subgroup to form their own sect, and create the content of their beliefs through mixing various influences, and still be able to identify themselves with that group and to use the groups privileges (places of worship, allowances, Hajj, etc.)
4. Exit - whether a member of the group is not being allowed to exit the group and go for alternate quest.

There can be other restrictions on behavior like food habits; dressing norms; time, duration and extent of praying rituals, and other social behavior, but these do not pertain to Freedom of Spiritual Quest.

So in a pluralist state and society such as India, where Muslims are a minority, they are not able to restrict the Freedom of Spiritual Quest for the others. And in places in India where they do so, through intimidation, etc. they become culpable of a crime. How Islam behaves outside India cannot be legislated in India.

Also as far as analysis of content of a particular religion is concerned, the religion may have the right to not inform the others of its various intricacies, but at no point in time, can a religious group threaten or intimidate its followers, because that would violate the right to life and to physical safety of the person.

As far as creating sects is concerned, it is basically a question of dominance of a particular sect, and that sect may dictate the rules, and privileges. However a sect may not bar another sect from calling themselves whatever they want. An example is that of Ahmediyyas in Pakistan. If Ahmediyyas want to call themselves Muslims, then it is their right. The state should give them what is their due. Sunnis cannot declare Ahmediyyas non-Muslims, and force the state to make that distinction as well, leading to possible discrimination and even danger to life.

Threat of Punishment for Apostasy violates the Right to Spiritual Quest the most, and not just that right.

So the intimidation and threats and violence can be punished by normal law. That in itself does not require any new legislation. That is a question of the state making its presence felt.

If a preacher as much as threatens violence on non-believers, on apostates or on blasphemers, he can be stripped of his right to preach, and he can be discharged from his duties as preacher, the management of the mosque or madrassa, or any other place of doctrinal learning and exercise, where he is engaged can be changed.

Your analogy of 'Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act' is valid for Behavior and not Doctrine. If some mosque does not allow a different place of religious worship to be built outside its area of jurisdiction, or if the workers of the mosque deliberately stop people from going to this other place, or threaten them, then it comes into effect.

Exclusivism is part of the Doctrine - My God is the only true God. It is part of the package. It is part of the product the religious ideology peddles.

Its like Hinduism offers Cars, Trains, Three-wheel Rickshaws, Bicycles, etc. but Islam offers only a Monocycle. The consumer has a choice. He can go to the company which offers only one product or to the other one. Just because Islam offers one single standard product, does not mean that that in itself is restricting others from having multiple wheeled vehicles or prohibiting someone from trying out the other product. Islam can have a viewpoint that Monocycles are the best mode of transport, but then that is their opinion, and they are allowed to have their opinions.

So if Islam is using monopolistic, restrictive, unethical practices for its propagation and exercise, then the question is: does it have to do with their exclusivism and Monotheism or with some other factor? I would say that it has more to do with its aggressive memes. It is not a case where they say, "There is only one God and he is Allah", but rather "There is only one God and he is Allah, and anybody who does not believe in that is wajib-ul-qatl or has to pay jiziya!"

It is the coercive behavior in Islam that one needs to change and not their mythology and spirituality. It is this behavior which restricts the freedom of spiritual quest, and not exclusivism.

And the way to encourage that the Muslims become Indic-compatible is through state support to those sects and groups within Islam who are willing to support that agenda and due to extra funding are capable of attracting many Muslim followers to their sect. The 'Charter of Indian Ethos' allows the State to support such a sect.

The reason I was suggesting the first route ( the 'hate speech' route) was that even though I personally don't prefer that route - the legal base already exists on that side. The Indian 'hate speech' law disallows any insults to a religion - and if you see the case history that I had attached for the UK - a case for establishing language such as 'The only way to God is through his son,......' as an insult to non-believers can be made quite easily.

I would personally prefer the US model - the US is the ONLY country that has no 'hate speech' regulation whatsoever. As a liberal, that is THE standard to aim for...Like you, I have absolutely no objection to anyone being able to criticize any aspect of any religion...and I would go further - I don't think true Hindus have any 'blasphemable' concepts and we should, in fact, be holding others to this high standard of liberality.

Arjun ji,

if I say, my wife is the most beautiful woman on the planet, would that insult you?! You would think, "gosh he is in love", and not, "how can he say something like that about the other women"!

Somebody who wants to play insulted, would find an excuse, and we Hindus should not even feel that Islam can in some way insult us, and certainly not by saying that their God is the only true God.

If they feel we don't pray to some true God, then let them think so. Their opinion about our spirituality is of no concern to us. It is only when they discriminate, or intimidate or attack us that their behavior becomes of concern and then one retaliates according to law, either of the state or of the jungle.

To summarize - there are two routes (the 'hate speech' route & the 'freedom of spiritual enquiry' route) under which exclusivist preachings can be barred. I would highly prefer the second route myself - but the legal base and precedence is probably higher under the first route which is the only reason I mentioned it in my earlier post.

It is not their exclusivist doctrine per se which curtails freedom of spiritual query but rather their "requirement" of enforcing it and the means they use for the purpose.

Even if the "Exclusivist Doctrine" was the genie we wanted to put into the bottle, it is still difficult to argue that exclusivism is the culprit for the lack of freedom of spiritual inquiry in Abrahamic religions. It could be any number of factors which hinder spiritual inquiry, many of them political in nature.

It is even more difficult that the worldview of a group can constitute hate speech, as long as the assertion is about one's own beliefs and not a commentary on the beliefs of the others. For in that case it is simply a PoV of a group. Sure if they start saying polytheists are vermins and mad dogs, then that may constitute hate speech, but I don't think Exclusivism really meets the bar.

[Arjun]

RajeshA ji,

Thanks for the detailed response - you've given me a lot of material to hone and refine my argument.

As an immediate reaction I would say that the following section of your post is key to the whole issue, and I would not entirely agree with some of your conclusions in this section...

Your analogy of 'Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act' is valid for Behavior and not Doctrine. If some mosque does not allow a different place of religious worship to be built outside its area of jurisdiction, or if the workers of the mosque deliberately stop people from going to this other place, or threaten them, then it comes into effect.

Exclusivism is part of the Doctrine - My God is the only true God. It is part of the package. It is part of the product the religious ideology peddles.

Its like Hinduism offers Cars, Trains, Three-wheel Rickshaws, Bicycles, etc. but Islam offers only a Monocycle. The consumer has a choice. He can go to the company which offers only one product or to the other one. Just because Islam offers one single standard product, does not mean that that in itself is restricting others from having multiple wheeled vehicles or prohibiting someone from trying out the other product. Islam can have a viewpoint that Monocycles are the best mode of transport, but then that is their opinion, and they are allowed to have their opinions.

But rather than respond with my full thoughts to you right away, would like to take a few days to refine and come up with a more holistic response. Will probably have it out by end of week....

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

take your time.

In the end, both of us are looking for a constitutional framework with which Indian Civilization can be given a boost while the Abrahamics are not allowed to destroy the society.

[brihaspati]

Because different identity niches have been created one after another without clarifying where they clash and which should overrule the other in case of clash, the only way forward appears to be a fight to the finish - because none of those "privileged" niches are going to be given up easily. India will head towards a civil war - with a multifactional and multi-group complicated war of attrition.

brihaspati ji,
if we are talking about a civil war with many factions and groups, then we are talking about a situation similar to the Kurukshetra yuddham. every major region of the country sends its people to fight to the finish. the fighting is between 2 broad factions, according to the Mahabharata. but in reality many "states" could have only been loosely allied with Pandavas or Kauravas, but were actively fighting against some component of "enemy" army which they had the most beef against.

is that the model on which this civil war will be fought (adapting to modern reality, of course) ?

I will try to address this in GDF because similar queries have arisen. Give me a couple of days. Drafted into Lifeguard duty on a duta-dalam for dragonland with BS drafts on 24-hr notice.

[devesh]

^^^
brihaspati ji,
take all the time you need. your life definitely seems to be adventurous. someday, if we meet, would be very much interested to know what you do.

[brihaspati]

given a partial answer in the "red" thread!

[Arjun]

RajeshA ji,

The key to identifying the culpability of exclusivist ideologies is in understanding some of their inherently anti-competitive features, that utilize restrictive and unethical practices with the sole aim of 'harvesting souls'.

On the economic and business side, several hundred years of experience and competition among businesses has led to the establishment of an entire super-structure that details out precisely how businesses can compete and what practices are 'anti-competitive' and therefore subject to litigation. In the US, the agency that regulates and oversees this effort is the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), in India it is the CCI (Competition Commission of India) which is the new avatar of the MRTP Commission. Most advanced countries have their own equivalents.

Here's a brief and relevant description of the how the FTC operates-

The Federal Trade Commission enforces a variety of federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Commission seeks to ensure that the nation's markets function competitively, and are vigorous, efficient, and free of undue restrictions.

The Commission also works to enhance the smooth operation of the marketplace by eliminating acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive. In general, the Commission's efforts are directed toward stopping actions that threaten consumers' opportunities to exercise informed choice.

The FTC's consumer protection cell acts as regulator for consumer protection with jurisdiction over false, misleading or unsubstantiated advertising and marketing practices that are unfair or deceptive to consumers.

How the FTC brings about action

The FTC may begin an investigation in different ways. Letters from consumers or businesses, Congressional inquiries, or articles on consumer or economic subjects may trigger FTC action. Investigations are either public or nonpublic. Generally, FTC investigations are nonpublic in order to protect both the investigation and the company.

If the FTC believes a violation of the law occurred, it may attempt to obtain voluntary compliance by entering into a consent order with the company. A company that signs a consent order need not admit that it violated the law, but it must agree to stop the disputed practices outlined in an accompanying complaint.

If a consent agreement cannot be reached, the FTC may issue an administrative complaint. If an administrative complaint is issued, a formal proceeding that is much like a court trial begins before an administrative law judge: evidence is submitted, testimony is heard, and witnesses are examined and cross-examined.If a law violation is found, a cease and desist order or other appropriate relief may be issued. Initial decisions by administrative law judges may be appealed to the full Commisson.

Final decisions issued by the Commission may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Commission's position is upheld, the FTC, in certain circumstances, may then seek consumer redress in court. If the company ever violates the order, the Commission also may seek civil penalties or an injunction.

In some circumstances, the FTC can go directly to court to obtain an injunction, civil penalties, or consumer redress. This usually happens in cases of ongoing consumer fraud. By going directly to court, the FTC can stop the fraud before too many consumers are injured. The Commission can also issue Trade Regulation Rules. If the FTC staff finds evidence of unfair or deceptive practices in an entire industry, it can recommend that the Commission begin a rulemaking proceeding. Throughout the rulemaking proceeding, the public will have opportunities to attend hearings and file written comments. The Commission will consider these comments along with the entire rulemaking record--the hearing testimony, the staff reports, and the Presiding Officer's report -- before making a final decision on the proposed rule. An FTC rule may be challenged in any of the U.S. Courts of Appeal. When issued, these rules have the force of law.

You will note that inspite of Freedom of Entrepreneurship and Freedom of Speech being fundamental values in the US - a violation of the FTC's norms takes precedence over both of these freedoms. Businesses are NOT free to utilize any practice whatsoever in order to compete in the marketplace, and businesses are not free to make deceptive or misleading advertisements in the name of 'free speech'.

So what is required is an agency in India that regulates religions (similar to FTC / CCI) operating under the ambit of laws (similar to US anti-trust laws or India's Competition Act) that would have precedence over existing freedom of religion and freedom of propagation of religion acts as well as right to free speech.

There are three examples of exclusivist preachings and 'deceptive religious marketing practices' that need to come under the purview of any such agency:

1) 'You can ONLY attain salvation if you believe in -----"

This would be an example of a restrictive and anti-competitive practice that is well known in business - that goes under the terminology of 'switching barriers' or 'switching costs'. If a firm attempts to impose some condition that makes it extremely difficult for a consumer to switch providers or suppliers - the FTC can reject it as an 'anti-competitive' and restrictive practice. There have been many court cases around this theme - which can be obtained easily enough from the web. The whole concept of mobile number portability came about from a court decision that having to change one's number when changing providers was an unacceptable 'switching barrier' imposed by telecom service providers.

A claim that a person / soul cannot attain salvation except by belief in the God of that particular faith - is a very obvious attempt at imposing 'switching barriers' to prevent adherents from exploring or converting to other faiths.

2) "All Gods other than ------ are FALSE"

A 'false or misleading fact DISPARAGING the goods, services or trade of another person' is also regarded as an unfair trade practice and can be litigated against in India under the CCI Act. Here we have an example of an exclusivist religion that is explicitly disparaging the quality or services offered by other religions. This is not linked to 'hate speech' or any feelings of insult suffered by an individual. Like I stated earlier, I personally would like to do away with all hate speech laws other than those that threaten violence. But this is an example of disparagement of a competitive offering from another religion - that can affect their competitive positioning in the 'marketplace' of religious thought. This would be addressed as an unfair trade practice regulation - which is not to be equated with hate speech regulation.

3) "There is only ONE God and his name is ----" / "The only way to God is through his Son----"

This would come under the ambit of another well-known anti-competitive business technique known as 'product bundling' or 'product tying', ie a consumer is necessarily made to purchase the entire bundle or nothing. Microsoft was accused of making use of anti-competitive 'product bundling' techniques - it tried to tie Microsoft Explorer to the Windows operating system for example, so that users of the latter could only use Explorer and no other browser. In an oligopoly which is a good characterization of the religious marketplace - product bundling is seen as an unfair use of market power.

Hinduism has an open architecture - meaning the God or means of salvation does not come bundled along with the rest of the religion. You are not tied to one particular God. However, the exclusvist religions do bundle the two concepts together. Given that India is the land of pluralism and the land of a sophisticated open-architecture religious framework - it would be highly retrogressive for non-open architectures to gain a following. India needs to insist on the same degree of liberalism for other religions - any religion not doing so would be guilty of anti-competitive 'product tying'.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that individuals can never be found culpable of any of these restrictive practices - individuals are free to believe whatever they want to and in whatsoever manner and there is no problem in that at all. However, I am suggesting that representatives of the religion, specifically preachers and proselytizers, be required to not make use of the practices identified above - in the course of their preaching / proselytism.

[RajeshA]

So what is required is an agency in India that regulates religions (similar to FTC / CCI) operating under the ambit of laws (similar to US anti-trust laws or India's Competition Act) that would have precedence over existing freedom of religion and freedom of propagation of religion acts as well as right to free speech.

There are three examples of exclusivist preachings and 'deceptive religious marketing practices' that need to come under the purview of any such agency:

Arjun ji,

I commend you on your choice to use well developed rules of one field and apply it to another.

1) 'You can ONLY attain salvation if you believe in -----"

This would be an example of a restrictive and anti-competitive practice that is well known in business - that goes under the terminology of 'switching barriers' or 'switching costs'. If a firm attempts to impose some condition that makes it extremely difficult for a consumer to switch providers or suppliers - the FTC can reject it as an 'anti-competitive' and restrictive practice. There have been many court cases around this theme - which can be obtained easily enough from the web. The whole concept of mobile number portability came about from a court decision that having to change one's number when changing providers was an unacceptable 'switching barrier' imposed by telecom service providers.

A claim that a person / soul cannot attain salvation except by belief in the God of that particular faith - is a very obvious attempt at imposing 'switching barriers' to prevent adherents from exploring or converting to other faiths.

I would consider 'You can ONLY attain salvation if you believe in -----' as an essential feature of the product, which is a belief system, and this is one belief in that belief system.

If a consumer has decided to change the belief system, then he has obviously also rejected this part of the belief system, this belief, which claims to exclusively provide consumer satisfaction. Once the consumer decides to change his belief system, he understands that such a claim was simply a part of their marketing strategy, their sales pitch. The consumer is not beholden to this belief. He can move on.

The 'switching barrier' argument would come into play if the consumer sees that he has a net loss of something which he identifies with his person, and not something which is a service of this belief-system and the community that is built around such a belief-system.

So if he fears for his life; the continued recognition of his marriage and his guardianship over his offspring; the health of his relations to his family members; boycott by others of his business and his means of income; the taxes he pays, etc. then there are 'switching barriers'.

If he is punished for his apostasy by above mentioned means, that there are switching barriers. Of course he would expect a reaction from his habitual community towards him for his act, but the punishment should not be to aspects of him he considers very personal - life, security, marriage, children, family relations, fundamental rights of equality as a citizen.

Indeed it here that the state should intervene to ensure that his person is not harmed due to his change of belief system.

The "exclusivism" is not a "switching barrier" IMO.

2) "All Gods other than ------ are FALSE"

A 'false or misleading fact DISPARAGING the goods, services or trade of another person' is also regarded as an unfair trade practice and can be litigated against in India under the CCI Act. Here we have an example of an exclusivist religion that is explicitly disparaging the quality or services offered by other religions. This is not linked to 'hate speech' or any feelings of insult suffered by an individual. Like I stated earlier, I personally would like to do away with all hate speech laws other than those that threaten violence. But this is an example of disparagement of a competitive offering from another religion - that can affect their competitive positioning in the 'marketplace' of religious thought. This would be addressed as an unfair trade practice regulation - which is not to be equated with hate speech regulation.

As you say, "false or misleading fact DISPARAGING the goods, services or trade of another person" should not be accepted.

However it is up to you to prove that the fact is false or misleading.

AFAIK, there aren't really any scientific means of proving that some God is objectively real, or that Salvation is guaranteed through some spiritual path.

If that is not made a criteria, and the argument is made that God is a people's belief and that belief is real, so God is real, then it comes down to the situation that one is arguing about subjective opinions, and not products. And normally subjective opinions on any subject are open for discussion by anybody and everybody.

Of course many governments in the world rebuke others for unjustified interfering in their internal affairs, should somebody else comment on that. Then there issues which come up in say a family, a couple, then the couple or a member too may shoo away the others saying they should not poke their nose in somebody else's family matters. Of course the others may not listen for reasons of universal human rights transcending borders or freedom of thought and speech about anything and everything under the sky or for reasons of citizen responsibility towards co-citizens.

So if one does not want others to comment about the internal affairs of a belief system, one needs to find an argument for shielding the belief-system from criticism and comment from outside. Do we want others from commenting on Hinduism and Hindu Gods, contending it is a closed system not open to scrutiny from others? Islam does it by shouting "BLASPHEMY!!!" at the drop of a hat or by initiating some motion in UN to bar everybody from criticizing Islam or even through pending legislation in India about stopping communalism. Do we want to go on that road?

If the problem is about others abusing Hindu Gods by claiming them as False, then yes one can institute legislation barring 'hate speech' or more appropriately 'insulting speech'! But as mentioned earlier, this becomes either an issue of a state's responsibility to ensure social harmony if considered in a liberal mental frame, which too has many downsides as discussed earlier.

If one wants to just ban the use of exclusivist language and not all-around criticism of other religions, but something specific like 'exclusivism', then it is difficult IMO to find a means for that in liberalism. One would have to depart the liberal mental framework, and enter traditional mental framework, and simply say - that is banned, and because we are a majority we decide. But we want to stay within the liberal mental framework, right?!

3) "There is only ONE God and his name is ----" / "The only way to God is through his Son----"

This would come under the ambit of another well-known anti-competitive business technique known as 'product bundling' or 'product tying', ie a consumer is necessarily made to purchase the entire bundle or nothing. Microsoft was accused of making use of anti-competitive 'product bundling' techniques - it tried to tie Microsoft Explorer to the Windows operating system for example, so that users of the latter could only use Explorer and no other browser. In an oligopoly which is a good characterization of the religious marketplace - product bundling is seen as an unfair use of market power.

Hinduism has an open architecture - meaning the God or means of salvation does not come bundled along with the rest of the religion. You are not tied to one particular God. However, the exclusvist religions do bundle the two concepts together. Given that India is the land of pluralism and the land of a sophisticated open-architecture religious framework - it would be highly retrogressive for non-open architectures to gain a following. India needs to insist on the same degree of liberalism for other religions - any religion not doing so would be guilty of anti-competitive 'product tying'.

Actually the 'bundling' that takes place in Islam or Abrahamic religions, generally speaking, takes place along another dimension. There the spiritual, jurisprudential, political, cultural, social aspects are all bundled into one.

That is why there is conflict between the Islamists and the seculars. The first say only Islamic jurisprudence - Sharia, the seculars say secular laws. No wonder we have difficulty imposing a Unified Civil Code in India.

That is why there is conflict between the Islamists and the rest of the world. The first say only Khilafat, the others say nation states. No wonder governments of Muslim countries are being weakened steadily and their interactions with the rest of the world under fire. That is why the Islamists are intent on turning every other country in the world Islamic as well through any means possible - wars, proselytization, terrorism and intimidation, demographic invasions, reckless breeding, etc.

That is why there is conflict between the Islamists and the Indics. That is why much of our cultural heritage was destroyed by the Islamic invaders. The Indics cannot accept that if somebody converts to Islam, what is the need for changing one's attire and growing beards and not respecting the previous culture.

That is why there is conflict between the Islamists and Indian society. The Islamists want to build ghettos and establish their own social mores over the ghetto, while the Indic is willing to live next to anybody.

It is this bundling, that needs to be broken up.

As the Muslims say, Islam is a complete package. So much for open architecture. So in Islam the "Internet Explorer" comes bundled with the Windows OS. Two separate modules for separate purposes bundled together.

But our conversation was about 'exclusivism', which constitutes the spiritual module of the religious architecture. Now monotheistic religions would say, within the spiritual module there can be only one God. Hindus will differ.
This is more like the Desktop Wallpaper. Islam allows only one wallpaper, and comes with Allah pre-installed. Hinduism allows multiple Desktop Wallpapers, and one can change depending on mood.

Now which law can impress upon some OS company, that they have to allow for a changing desktop wallpaper. That is simply a feature of the product, through which the OS company says, it wants to make the lives of its customers easier, and besides through their market research they have found out that many 1.5 billion customers are in fact satisfied with just having a single desktop wallpaper pre-installed in their belief systems. The customers are totally in awe of this desktop wallpaper and very willingly sit down five times a day with their desktop cleared of all other concerns and simply stare at the beauty. It is an essential pitch of their advertising strategy and nobody can expect them to change it.

[RajeshA]

Finally, I would like to emphasize that individuals can never be found culpable of any of these restrictive practices - individuals are free to believe whatever they want to and in whatsoever manner and there is no problem in that at all. However, I am suggesting that representatives of the religion, specifically preaches and proselytizers, be required to not make use of the practices identified above - in the course of their preaching / proselytism.

Let me use an atheist perspective for a second.

Hinduism is somewhat frustrated. Till about a thousand years ago, Hinduism had a simple mechanism to assimilate various tribes in the Indian Subcontinent and beyond. The patron god of the tribe was simply considered another avatar of the Hindu Gods, his/her mythology was included in the various puranas, and he/she was given some seat in the pantheon. In time the tribes were encouraged to adopt the complete mythology and also to turn to the more popular Gods, and thus the tribe was assimilated. That was the expansion model of Hinduism.

When Islam came, the invaders insisted on having only one God and decried polytheism. Suddenly Hinduism's traditional model became defunct. When Christianity came, it too proved resistant.

So when you insist on "Exclusivism" in Abrahamic religions being a major factor stopping the integration of the Indians, then you are perfectly correct.

But one cannot insist on Islam or Christianity to purge their religions of "Exclusivism" because it is simply their core. Without that there is nothing left in them. They would not do it. And basically a liberal state would not find any loopholes in liberalism to enforce something like that. What you are calling for is for Islam and Christianity to commit suicide.

From history we know, that the guardians of the religion would rather accept suicide of the followers rather than suicide of the doctrine. Nothing moves.

For too long Hinduism has considered one of its main strength a strict order between the various groups - varna, gotra, etc. Even as it strengthened the resolve of the upper castes to stay Hindu, especially with the entailing privileges, it weakened the resolve of the lower castes to remain so, for the system was not spitting out enough benefits for them.

When the Islamic invaders invaded India and successfully, many from the higher castes would have had the most to lose, for they had the most. Many as such simply changed their faith to Islam or otherwise entered into alliances with them. Many lower castes too willing to change their faith in expectation of something better. I assume that not all were converted because a) Islam still needed some to be used and sold as slaves. b) Many privileged Hindus who converted were not willing to accept the lower castes to be their equals, and as such left them as Hindus c) not all lower castes were willing to leave their faith regardless of how underprivileged they were, due to Bhakti, superstition and traditional inertia. d) Hindustan was simply too vast to be converted so easily e) Islamists were not able to get complete control over the region and they were always kept busy in warfare.

In a democratic India, however after the Muslims took "their" share of land as Pakistan, and there were still Muslims left in India, the Islamic proselytization would again have gathered speed, if everything was left as before. Now the Islamists had a reason to proselytize India completely, for now power was decided not through swords but through ballots. But intelligent upper-caste Hindus were able to stop this - through their efforts at removing untouchability and most importantly through preferential treatment for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in education, jobs, etc., thus allowing them to reach out to privileges themselves. If that had not been the case, the attrition in the ranks of Hindus would have been immense even after Partition. Democracy, Federalism, and Quotas saved Hinduism post-Partition, and some grand scale politics and warfare saved Hinduism during Islamic period.

Why I say so?

Because Hinduism still is in only an early phase of consolidation, using an alternative model to consolidation. Not by dividing the Hindus into small groups and imposing some hierarchy over them, but through opening the gates of wisdom of Dharma to all its followers, through claiming a collective pride in its civilization.

If Hindus want to reconquer lost ground, we will have to also look for an alternative model to our expansion, that we had. Assimilation through pantheonic expansion is not really a means available today. For that Islam and Christianity have been far too busy in our years of subjugation and sleep.

Hindus would have to change their worldview on spiritual mission. The mission is not simply Nirvana of the self or some prosperity and order of the own community but also bringing the word of Dharma to the world. The Hindu Continuum would have to go on a missionary drive. We have to adopt the Grow or Die attitude.

And while there are individual Hindu missionaries and visionaries doing just that, the Hindu society as a whole has not yet reoriented itself completely. The sadhus and babas and matas are still only going after Hindus only. That too is needed, but that is still consolidation work. That is not expansionary thinking.

Hinduism would have to change its outlook significantly for again coming on the ascendant. We have to learn the tricks of the missionary trade, to some extent even use the vocabulary of the missionary trade, if we want to get there where we want to.

Islam is not going to change for us. "Exclusivism" here or "Exclusivism" there. WE have to rise to the challenge by turning missionary.

If we want to align Dharma with Liberalism, than that is good too, but then we need to know exactly how one can use Liberalism to fight Abrahamic religions. And so I come back to my original proposal:

• Don't attack its spiritual doctrine. Let the West do it.
• Just neutralize its aggressive memes through stricter and harsher legal and administrative machinery.
• And use proactive-liberal legislation derived from "Charter of Indian Ethos" to create first an acceptable alternative 'Hindislam' and then an alternative path back to the Dharmic Fold.

[Arjun]

RajeshA ji,

Let me summarize some of the key questions / issues that arise as a result of your responses, and I will try and address each of these in subsequent posts, as I find time...

- Is it valid to leverage learnings derived from regulation of businesses to the regulation of religions ?
- Do the examples I provided satisfy the definition of 'switching barrier', competitor disparagement & product tying respectively?
- Is competitor disparagement regulation equivalent to or the same as 'hate speech' regulation?
- Is regulation of exclusivist preaching consistent with the tenets of liberalism?
- What are some alternative modes for curbing the dark side of exclusivist ideologies and how do the approaches compare?

At some point of course if there is no common ground, we will just have to agree to disagree, but I do think I am benefiting and learning from this exchange of thought (hopefully it is mutual).

[RajeshA]

Arjun ji,

I just wanted to confirm whether you read both of my previous posts or just the last one?

[Arjun]

I've seen both.

[RajeshA]

I don't wish to distract from our discussion earlier, but just wished to comment on something I've come to understand from L'Affaire Fai, and that is that there is a need for India to proliferate more talking shops in the world, what somnath ji calls these Track II (III, IV) diplomacy.

I would say we need a wide variety of ideologies out there, all of which cater to Indian interests in different ways and the talking shops, think-tanks which revolve around those ideologies. These talking shops need to be funded in a similar way, they are funded in USA through 'philanthropists', and indirectly through the establishment.

Some ideas on such ideologies could be:
a) Pan-Subcontinentalism
b) Western Post-Colonial Subjugation of the non-Western world
c) Awareness Creation about Western Colonialism
d) Dictatorial currents in Asia & Human Rights
e) Ijtihad in Islam
f) Pro-Active Liberalism
g) Indian Ethos
h) Status of Women in the Indian Subcontinent

etc.

Just some thoughts

[RajeshA]

Protection of Native Cultures

X-Posting from "Christian" Fundamentalism in West Thread

Arjun ji, we don't need to build our case on the basis of religious freedom. Those who do must first defend the charge, that they do not speak of predatory ideologies propagated through manipulative means.

We should have our own commission, called "Commission for the Protection of Native Cultures"! Why play their game? Religious Freedom is their bakwas.

[RajeshA]

Protection of Native Cultures

X-Posting from "Christian" Fundamentalism in West Thread

Protection of Native Cultures may be one argument, but you need the entire arsenal - including explicitly bringing up the Christian / Western record of terrorism and barbarism, as well as questioning the very basis of their own excusivist creed as not fitting in with both modern liberal thinking as well as India's pluralist ethos.

This is true.

One needs to attack the EJs at multiple levels from multiple vectors. One however needs to have clarity in what one is doing.

It is fair game to debunk their claims and in fact put them on the defensive through aggressive propaganda, highlighting their manipulative ways and their philosophical weaknesses, as you mentioned.

However all this is a debate at the philosophical level. They say something. You say something. They say something. You say something. So people would believe you. Others will believe them. That is however not necessarily a game changer.

Important is what measure one adopts to nail something to one's rivals. They use the measure of "Religious Freedom"! They can tell you exactly when the feel that the religious rights of somebody were not respected. How one stopped the other in pursuing practice or propagation of religion, how somebody was discriminated due to his religious persuasion!

What is our response going to be? It can't be some mumbo-jumbo philosophical debate. It has to be something you too can show using case studies, observations, press clips, NGO reports, etc.

"Protection of Native Cultures" is a measure one can use to nail something on the EJs very specifically. You can prove that all those people who adopted Christianity, say in the Northeast India, do not follow their earlier animist beliefs, nor do they adhere to ancient customs. That is cultural genocide. That is provable. That can be proved for a large number of people.

You can show that more people had their native cultures destroyed, than people whose religious rights were violated in some way or another. That is something concrete. That is a report thick enough that if one throws it at them, they can get hurt.

Secondly one can have commissions which study the proselytization strategies of EJs and show that they are scheming manipulative buggers. That is again another report one can throw in their faces, and show that this has nothing to do with religious freedom, but is rather an exploitation of other peoples poverty and manipulation of their susceptible situations.

[RajeshA]

Protection of Native Cultures

This is the accusation that sticks to Christianity and Islam better than anything else. We have seen how Christian missionaries have gone to continents like Africa, Australia, South and Central America, North America, India's Northeast and have systematically contributed to the destruction of native cultures. They have systematically tried to convince the local populace to change not just their system of salvation, but rather to purge all of their earlier customs, links to their previous culture.

Many today even among the Western people, when confronted with the history of Christianity, and how it was spread throughout the non-Western and non-Semitic World, show embarrassment and regret. This is the big shame Christianity carries with itself.

"Protection of Native Cultures" is the weapon, the magnifying glass, that can be used to put Christian missionaries on the defensive from word go. It is not as if they would really be ashamed of what they are doing, but rather their vast support bases in the West, who turn a blind eye to the missionary work of the more driven among their ranks and of the Christian establishment, they would be forced to confront the accusation, and it is they who would retract their support from such missionary projects.

The goal is to raise the principle of "Protection of Native Cultures" to the same level, if not higher than, "Freedom of Religion".

Basically the whole manifesto that Breivikism has written, espouses nothing else, than this concept. He claims that Christianity is the native culture of Europe, and it needs to be protected from another predatory missionary religion, which upon neither being able to assert itself through conquest, nor by receiving sufficient appeal among European masses for conversion, is trying to expand in Europe through demographic expansion - immigration, and higher rates of fertility among Muslims. What Breivik is espousing is something that finds a lot of support among many Europeans, who have been forced to be quiet due to "political correctness", as Breivik suggests.

It is the concept of "Protection of Native Cultures" that needs to be asserted forcefully. Many around the world would agree to it.

It is this principle, that should be on India's coat of arms of values, that India carries out into the world. "Protection of native cultures" is about protecting inherent plurality in society and geography. It is about protecting cultural diversity. Hinduism was about bringing the message and wisdom of Vedas, without upsetting the local cultures. Hinduism is all about contra-homogenization. So the principle of "Protection of Native Cultures" is a principle which syncs and gels well with Hinduism, and as such is the principle that comes naturally to Indians.

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from "Christian" Fundamentalism in West Thread

Pranav, if that is your interpretation that I am fine with it. I am not as much concerned with the literal interpretation of the scriptures as much as understanding the learning that adherants derive from the passage.

Irrespective of the scriptural texts, what I am concerned with is this - are there adherants who take exclusivist messages literally - ie who genuinely believe that there is no God other than ----, all other Gods are false et al ?

Unless somebody can present me a clear rationale as to why this is not a problem - it is my conviction that exclusvism is the primary cause of bloodshed and large scale conflict globally and historically - and unless this elephant in the room is recognized and addressed there will be no moving forward for the world at large.

<snip>

Fyi, I am an agnostic, and I have far more faith in logic than I have in Vishnu, Siva or Jesus. Dogma is a big no-no for me.

<snip>

I do think religions that have historically placed high emphasis on exclusivism need to first acknowledge this as a drawback and dilute this aspect going forward.

Arjun ji,

consider this.

Some people, whose ideology may be that the human should attain the best genetic constitution and are irritated by the disturbance caused by religion, would tend to advocate a wholesale genetic engineering of the human genome by each and every human to somehow take out the genes for "gullibility", "insecurity" and "faith"!

Some people, who are atheists and believe that religion itself is the core problem for the social disturbance cause by religion, would probably like all religions to be banned, for these simply propagate some "God mumbo-jumbo" what nobody has ever seen, and for which there is no evidence that satisfies them.

Agnostics who have no disposition towards faith, would probably not appreciate the tendency of the faithful of some religion to believe in the truth in their religion, regardless of whether they exclusivist or not. Agnostics may say that all "concocted up" Gods deserve equal accessibility from people, and thus exclusivism may be a problem, and thus may like to legislate that, bulldozing over the faith of the adherents of exclusivist religions.

Of course there are others who may find other philosophical problems with God and religions.

Then there are those, like me, who say, that the problem is not in what people believe but rather in how people act, and people need to be made responsible for their actions, as actions are the building blocks of justice, and not beliefs.

One can find fault with any one of the links forming the existential chain of the phenomena of religion based ideological predatoriness, intimidation and violence!

The question is "which is the link in the chain, where an intervention would be acceptable by society?"

Should we

1. legislate our genetic makeup curbing our genetic disposition to faith, or
2. should we legislate the evolution of human society curbing freedom of religion completely, or
3. should we legislate the contents of a belief system curbing the freedom of thought, or
4. should we legislate the behavior of man, or

one could even consider exterminating the whole human race to get rid of religion!

Because you are agnostic, you may feel the tendency to intervene at a particular link, but as far as I see it, it is impracticable as the over 4 billion adherents of the Abrahamic religions in the world have no appetite to even consider such a view as worthy of a second though! And more importantly it lacks a sound philosophical justification as a subject capable of legislation.

Recognizing an aspect of the problem, is simply a case of a blind-folded man trying to fathom an elephant by feeling one of his body-parts! Any place you touch upon the problem of religion is society would be true, that it constitutes a part of the problem, but you cannot make the elephant move by tickling any arbitrary part.

[Arjun]

Protection of Native Cultures

Good argument, RajeshA ji.

Though your reasoning can exist independently of any other, in my mind - destruction of native cultures or 'deracination' is a natural consequence of religious exclusivism, since the convert is explicitly required to disown his/ her existing roots. (A couple of other liberal arguments against exclusvism are that exclusivism breeds the mindset that has historically resulted in large-scale religious conflict and violence; and exclusvism essentially enforces the 'dogma'-based thinking that liberals oppose).

However lets move forward on the argument of protection of native cultures on a standalone basis. A key counter-argument could be-

Does religion constitute a basic element of 'native culture' or can one adopt an alien religion while yet conforming to the native 'culture'?

Massive effort would be expended (by interested parties) in proving that the latter is possible and that culture and religion need to be viewed as distinct.

My perspective would be that even if an exclusivist religion adopted all local elements and customs - it would yet result in destruction of native culture. Lets say the local deity is a female mother-godess, say a form of Durga. Current exclusivist practices would result in the new convert looking down on all other villagers who worship Durga, and identify more with his new co-religionists who view XXXX as the ONLY way to salvation....So in my mind, unless the new convert is actively counseled that Durga is an equally valid path, and that he / she should not look down upon the other villagers who continue to worship the mother goddess - what would result is yet another case of 'deracination' and eventual erosion of native culture.

[Arjun]

X-Posting from "Christian" Fundamentalism in West Thread

Agnostics who have no disposition towards faith, would probably not appreciate the tendency of the faithful of some religion to believe in the truth in their religion, regardless of whether they exclusivist or not. Agnostics may say that all "concocted up" Gods deserve equal accessibility from people, and thus exclusivism may be a problem, and thus may like to legislate that, bulldozing over the faith of the adherents of exclusivist religions.

RajeshA ji, I have no disposition towards Faith myself, but I respect and understand that faith is a big driver for very many and faith is very useful in situations which are dire enough that one's resolve is tested. However, I am also strongly against dogma as a part of faith, specifically when the dogma can have negative repercussions on society. Religious liberals, incidentally, have also been traditionally opposed to dogma imposed as a part of faith.

As an example, caste was a dogma imposed on Hindu society - and thankfully Hindus who see this dogma for what it is and also understand the negative impact on society are in the majority. Hindus have gone beyond the legislative requirement of no discrimination on the basis of caste - to even questioning whether they should be thinking on caste lines or even have names that denote their caste. So, one could say there is a 'social compact' that realizes that a mindset change is required more than just simple legislation to address this issue.

Exclusivism, specifically in the more virulent form that looks down on pagans - is just the same kind of dogma imposed in the name of faith. Whether legislation is required or a social compact would do to address this is a separate question.

You would notice that historically India has had a 'social compact' that has been anti-exclusvism. Why do you think the song 'Ishwar Allah tere naam' was popularized? India has always civilizationally laid stress on this aspect.

Bottomline is if Hindu society, no doubt strongly egged on by non-Hindu critics, could consider reforming their religion so as to remove prevalent dogma - on what basis would you say that other religions should be exempt?

Certainly India has no jurisdiction over the 4 billion plus adherants of Islam and Christianity globally, but it certainly has jurisdiction over its own population to either lay down a social code or legislate, whichever is deemed more appropriate.

[RajeshA]

Protection of Native Cultures

Good argument, RajeshA ji.

Though your reasoning can exist independently of any other, in my mind - destruction of native cultures or 'deracination' is a natural consequence of religious exclusivism, since the convert is explicitly required to disown his/ her existing roots. (A couple of other liberal arguments against exclusvism are that exclusivism breeds the mindset that has historically resulted in large-scale religious conflict and violence; and exclusvism essentially enforces the 'dogma'-based thinking that liberals oppose).

We need to differentiate how religions have based, and how religions can behave while keeping the core of their belief system. It is the difference between what is intrinsic and mandatory to a particular religion, and what are social, political, ideological factors associated with the religion which required a more "ambitious" agenda, but which are not intrinsic to the religious belief itself.

However lets move forward on the argument of protection of native cultures on a standalone basis. A key counter-argument could be-

Does religion constitute a basic element of 'native culture' or can one adopt an alien religion while yet conforming to the native 'culture'?

Massive effort would be expended (by interested parties) in proving that the latter is possible and that culture and religion need to be viewed as distinct.

An alien religion could theoretically not violate the principle of "Protection of Native Cultures", if it accepts that the preservation of old customs, whether based on religious beliefs of the people or non-religious beliefs, is important for the people.

As the alien religion considers to be the only one espousing the One True God or the One True Path, it could theoretically look upon the older religious system as simply representing mythology and not religion. Also one can consider the old religious rituals as simply being legacy cultural customs, where the customs are preserved and practiced consciously as being part of the ethnicity's, history, folklore and culture, and not necessarily having any spiritual aspect to it.

Hindu Mythology, Indic Symbology, Ancient Indian science, Maths, Astronomy, Medicine, Ayurveda, Yoga, Music, Dance, Theater, Languages, Literature, Architecture, Designs and Patterns, Indian history as available from Indic texts, all that can be taken over as accompaniment of Christianity and Islam in India.

Pride in history and culture should persevere beyond conversion of an Indian to Islam or Christianity.

Of course, if Islam and Christianity tries to downplay the significance of these ethnological aspects, or criticizes these ethnological aspects and tries to persuade the new converts to distance themselves from their past, then it is culpable of destroying native cultures.

This can be measured empirically both through time, as well as through comparison with those who still adhere to the old beliefs and still abide by all the old customs.

My perspective would be that even if an exclusivist religion adopted all local elements and customs - it would yet result in destruction of native culture. Lets say the local deity is a female mother-godess, say a form of Durga. Current exclusivist practices would result in the new convert looking down on all other villagers who worship Durga, and identify more with his new co-religionists who view XXXX as the ONLY way to salvation....So in my mind, unless the new convert is actively counseled that Durga is an equally valid path, and that he / she should not look down upon the other villagers who continue to worship the mother goddess - what would result is yet another case of 'deracination' and eventual erosion of native culture.

Deracination is a distancing from the old customs and the traditional way of thinking.

The new religion, whatever it is - Islam, Christianity, or Booga Wooga, does not need to counsel anything on the lines that Durga is an equally valid path or not, it is immaterial. The only important thing is that the convert should continue to appreciate his ethnic heritage and show respect and tolerance for those who are still believers in the old belief system.

[RajeshA]

I am also strongly against dogma as a part of faith, specifically when the dogma can have negative repercussions on society. Religious liberals, incidentally, have also been traditionally opposed to dogma imposed as a part of faith.

As an example, caste was a dogma imposed on Hindu society - and thankfully Hindus who see this dogma for what it is and also understand the negative impact on society are in the majority. Hindus have gone beyond the legislative requirement of no discrimination on the basis of caste - to even questioning whether they should be thinking on caste lines or even have names that denote their caste. So, one could say there is a 'social compact' that realizes that a mindset change is required more than just simple legislation to address this issue.

Arjun ji,

the issue of jati and varna have been topics of other threads. Also the hereditary aspect of varna being part of dogma is very contentious. Besides there is so much diversity in the Hindu Spiritual Continuum, that there is hardly anything one can nail to it as being core belief or dogma. So the reform in Hindu society was seen as reform of society and was not rejected by it outright by all the guardians of Hindu faith as opposing the Hindu dogma.

This is different with Christianity and Islam.

Exclusivism, specifically in the more virulent form that looks down on pagans - is just the same kind of dogma imposed in the name of faith. Whether legislation is required or a social compact would do to address this is a separate question.

You would notice that historically India has had a 'social compact' that has been anti-exclusvism. Why do you think the song 'Ishwar Allah tere naam' was popularized? India has always civilizationally laid stress on this aspect.

Exclusivist religions may look down upon pagans, not necessarily because of their exclusivism but because they consider religious identification as determinant for respect of others. Only secondarily Exclusivism plays a role in that.

Bottomline is if Hindu society, no doubt strongly egged on by non-Hindu critics, could consider reforming their religion so as to remove prevalent dogma - on what basis would you say that other religions should be exempt?

Certainly India has no jurisdiction over the 4 billion plus adherants of Islam and Christianity globally, but it certainly has jurisdiction over its own population to either lay down a social code or legislate, whichever is deemed more appropriate.

You are mixing up things. You are using dogma to be equivalent to social mores.

India can definitely legislate on issues which India considers as basic norms of society - e.g. marriage only after 18 years of age; recognition of only one marriage at a time in the eyes of law, etc. Nobody is stopping India from legislating on these issues and enforcing such laws. These issues do not belong in Islam doctrine of mandatory customs. Even if some issues did violate the compunctions in Islam or Christianity but were conform with a general understanding of human rights and human welfare, India could still enforce them.

But then law is all about what others can do and not what they should believe in.

[Arjun]

The new religion, whatever it is - Islam, Christianity, or Booga Wooga, does not need to counsel anything on the lines that Durga is an equally valid path or not, it is immaterial. The only important thing is that the convert should continue to appreciate his ethnic heritage and show respect and tolerance for those who are still believers in the old belief system.

The basic idea has legs, the key challenge would be in translating this to ground reality either in the form of a social compact or legislation.

Another critical point - you use the words 'respect' and 'tolerance'.

In the western context, tolerance just implies you are not killing or harming the other person for his views. So the bar for 'tolerance' is fairly low...we are looking for something stronger. You've used the word 'respect' which is certainly stronger. But respect implies that you believe the other person's beliefs to be valid....So while this would be a good solution - the roadblock one runs into is the same one as for exclusvism...the Abrahamic religions will have a problem with this.

You will notice that in the West (more so in the US) the phrase used for pluralism is 'tolerance of all religions'. There are legal reasons behind the terminology. 'Respect' denotes a conferring of validity that the legal system / EJs would have serious issues with.

[Arjun]

Also the hereditary aspect of varna being part of dogma is very contentious. Besides there is so much diversity in the Hindu Spiritual Continuum, that there is hardly anything one can nail to it as being core belief or dogma. So the reform in Hindu society was seen as reform of society and was not rejected by it outright by all the guardians of Hindu faith as opposing the Hindu dogma.

I would agree that caste was never a 'doctrinally-sanctioned dogma'. But nevertheless it was a socially-sanctioned dogma at one point though that is no longer the case....Anyway this is a side issue, so lets leave the topic of caste aside.

Your two main arguments for not acting against religious exclusivism seem to be the following:

1. "Exclusivist religions may look down upon pagans, not necessarily because of their exclusivism but because they consider religious identification as determinant for respect of others. Only secondarily Exclusivism plays a role in that." In other words, you consider exclusivism in itself not to be a problem but only some of its cruder manifestations.

2. But then law is all about what others can do and not what they should believe in.

As regards (1), I believe that exclusvism when combined with aggressive proselytization (this would rule out Judaism and other non-proseletyzing exclusivist faiths) INEVITABLY leads to both (1) destruction of native cultures / deracination and (2) cases of large scale violence / bloodshed which would have not occurred if all religions were non-exclusivist. I know you dispute the causal relationship out here - but unless you can present me with evidence to the contrary lets just agree to disagree on this point.

As for (2), the means of implementation can be either some form of aggressive state-supported 'social compact' OR it can be legislation - I have not yet determined which one is more critical. If it is just a 'social compact' it would be an extension of the already existing mainstream thought that looks down on exclusvism, but in a more aggressive fashion. So we move beyond the basics ('Ishwar Allah tere naam'- type songs) to more varied media campaigns that convey that India believes in each individual being non-exclusvistic with regard to faith...this would be actively promoted as a value to be cherished, and exclusvism as something to be decried.

If we decide to go down the path of legislation, the point to remember is that legislation in the ordinary course does not just cover 'action' but there is ample precedence for regulation to also cover doctrine that is manifested in the form of marketing literature or public statements or marketing activity (proselytization is a 'marketing activity' for religions). Like I have stated earlier - any such regulation would not target individual belief in the least - it would target what is considered as 'marketing activity for the religon' ie ONLY preachers & proseletyzers while in the act of preaching or proseletyzing, as also any literature produced by them.

[RajeshA]

Your two main arguments for not acting against religious exclusivism seem to be the following:

1. "Exclusivist religions may look down upon pagans, not necessarily because of their exclusivism but because they consider religious identification as determinant for respect of others. Only secondarily Exclusivism plays a role in that." In other words, you consider exclusivism in itself not to be a problem but only some of its cruder manifestations.

As regards (1), I believe that exclusvism when combined with aggressive proselytization (this would rule out Judaism and other non-proseletyzing exclusivist faiths) INEVITABLY leads to both (1) destruction of native cultures / deracination and (2) cases of large scale violence / bloodshed which would have not occurred if all religions were non-exclusivist. I know you dispute the causal relationship out here - but unless you can present me with evidence to the contrary lets just agree to disagree on this point.

Proselytization may have a religious sanction and even be considered a duty, but mostly it is to increase the group, the herd, so that the shepherd, and by that I mean certain elites who control the various church movements and their backers have a bigger herd to do their bidding. Respect for others is also a tactical choice. If you show that the other religion is not worth one's respect, you're encouraging others to convert to your own religion, one that ensures you more respect.

Hinduism which calls for respect of all schools of thought have a natural disadvantage that it cannot use this psychological tool to demean other religions, thus appropriating the awe of its followers. In fact the caste hierarchy was in itself an impediment in using this psychological tool effectively.

What we are dealing with here are political objectives of religions and psychological tools they use. You wish to combat that by calling for changes in dogma.

Anybody who calls for changes in dogma in others, is in effect saying that their dogma is not in a position to compete for the hearts and minds of the people on its own strength.

These are all issues of competition. If Hinduism wants to compete with Islam and Christianity, it needs to work on its rhetoric, dedication of its followers, and be pro-active in cultivating Dharmic thinking and even more importantly Indic identification in the people.

India is growing in prosperity. There is no reason to fear that Hindus cannot compete with Abrahamic religions as far as resources are concerned. The problem lies with the Hindu structures, both mental and temporal.

2. But then law is all about what others can do and not what they should believe in.

As for (2), the means of implementation can be either some form of aggressive state-supported 'social compact' OR it can be legislation - I have not yet determined which one is more critical. If it is just a 'social compact' it would be an extension of the already existing mainstream thought that looks down on exclusvism, but in a more aggressive fashion. So we move beyond the basics ('Ishwar Allah tere naam'- type songs) to more varied media campaigns that convey that India believes in each individual being non-exclusvistic with regard to faith...this would be actively promoted as a value to be cherished, and exclusvism as something to be decried.

If we decide to go down the path of legislation, the point to remember is that legislation in the ordinary course does not just cover 'action' but there is ample precedence for regulation to also cover doctrine that is manifested in the form of marketing literature or public statements or marketing activity (proselytization is a 'marketing activity' for religions). Like I have stated earlier - any such regulation would not target individual belief in the least - it would target what is considered as 'marketing activity for the religon' ie ONLY preachers & proseletyzers while in the act of preaching or proseletyzing, as also any literature produced by them.

All this seems to me to be an exercise in trying to grasp one's nose stretching the arm around the head.

We have spoken of legislation, and the philosophical difficulties in that.

I would suggest to go the 'social compact' route. But I am afraid with the thinking on "exclusivism" etc. one would end up messing up that as well.

In a way, you are proposing a licence raj thinking - controlling what others can do, rather than thinking how one can do one better and beat the competition. How about legislating in a way, which gives the Indic Continuum a leg up? How about pulling up our socks and doing better than them? How about learning from their proselytization tactics?

Legislation, Social Compacts and "Exclusivism" Whining are just excuses to hide our intellectual and organizational laziness behind!

[RajeshA]

In the western context, tolerance just implies you are not killing or harming the other person for his views. So the bar for 'tolerance' is fairly low...we are looking for something stronger. You've used the word 'respect' which is certainly stronger. But respect implies that you believe the other person's beliefs to be valid....So while this would be a good solution - the roadblock one runs into is the same one as for exclusvism...the Abrahamic religions will have a problem with this.

You will notice that in the West (more so in the US) the phrase used for pluralism is 'tolerance of all religions'. There are legal reasons behind the terminology. 'Respect' denotes a conferring of validity that the legal system / EJs would have serious issues with.

Arjun ji,

here is how I would define them in context:

1) Tolerance - The willingness of Muslims and Christians to share society with Hindus, without demanding others to change their ways. Going slow on proselytization. No demeaning of Hindu society and religion. No intimidation. No whining. No pressure from external parties like US, Vatican, Saudi Arabia, etc.

2) Respect - Muslims and Christians should show respect towards Hindus for having good intentions, being motivated to explore spirituality, and for being respectful towards them as well. Moreover they should respect Hindus for keeping their ethnic cultural heritage alive and flourishing.

Both have nothing to do with dogma, one God or Many Gods, etc. That is immaterial.

[Arjun]

These are all issues of competition. If Hinduism wants to compete with Islam and Christianity, it needs to work on its rhetoric, dedication of its followers, and be pro-active in cultivating Dharmic thinking and even more importantly Indic identification in the people.

Where I am coming from is not purely from the Hindu POV.... The agnosticism and anti-exclusivism thinking come first in priority. My defence of Hinduism follows as a consequence of this- given that Hinduism is the largest non-exclusivist faith globally.

As regards Hinduism competing - I agree it needs to become far more pro-active, but that's a separate issue. Hinduism's stance should be similar to that of India in the nuclear debate. India would like to actively work towards a nuclear-free world - but in the meantime until that materializes, India does not wish to be in the HAVE-NOT club. In similar fashion, while one works towards lessening the virulent effects of exclusivist creeds - Hinduism as a pluralistic religion would remain at a competitive disadvantage when forced to compete with religions having a completely different framework. That would imply that in the interim, Hinduism should consider adopting the same competitive tactics as used by the exclusivists.

[Arjun]

here is how I would define them in context:

1) Tolerance - The willingness of Muslims and Christians to share society with Hindus, without demanding others to change their ways. Going slow on proselytization. No demeaning of Hindu society and religion. No intimidation. No whining. No pressure from external parties like US, Vatican, Saudi Arabia, etc.

2) Respect - Muslims and Christians should show respect towards Hindus for having good intentions, being motivated to explore spirituality, and for being respectful towards them as well. Moreover they should respect Hindus for keeping their ethnic cultural heritage alive and flourishing.

This would be a good end-state to aim for.....also takes care of my concern (ie combination of exclusivism + expansionism; if proselytization is curtailed that would take care of it). But don't know how one ensures 'going slow on proselytization'. Presumably one can either allow or prohibit it - don't know if there's a middle way... (my earlier suggestion was to regulate proselytization but not to ban it).

[ManishH]

You can regulate the money flows that fuel proselytization of exclusive creeds.

[RajeshA]

These are all issues of competition. If Hinduism wants to compete with Islam and Christianity, it needs to work on its rhetoric, dedication of its followers, and be pro-active in cultivating Dharmic thinking and even more importantly Indic identification in the people.

As regards Hinduism competing - I agree it needs to become far more pro-active, but that's a separate issue. Hinduism's stance should be similar to that of India in the nuclear debate. India would like to actively work towards a nuclear-free world - but in the meantime until that materializes, India does not wish to be in the HAVE-NOT club. In similar fashion, while one works towards lessening the virulent effects of exclusivist creeds - Hinduism as a pluralistic religion would remain at a competitive disadvantage when forced to compete with religions having a completely different framework. That would imply that in the interim, Hinduism should consider adopting the same competitive tactics as used by the exclusivists.

This Anti-Exclusivism resembles at bit like the following. There are lions and tigers on the loose in the jungle. They are dangerous and predatory.

Now one starts saying these wild animals with whiskers are a threat, and one needs to get some control over them. So one goes about outlawing any whiskers.

Now of course whiskers are a feature of these giant cats, but the danger is from claws and teeth of the animals. I would rather concentrate on the claws and teeth of the animals, rather expend my time thinking about the whiskers.

Those in the jungle may have noticed how some Sardars and Rajputs show off with their mustaches, and may come to the decision that whiskers are an affront to all those who don't have them, and represents a permanent form of insult, thereby declare whiskers as an embodiment of discrimination and evil, requiring a crusade to abolish whiskers.

But if one wishes to overlook the political dimensions of Islam and Christianity, their strategies of proselytization, etc. and only concentrates on the whiskers, then one would have a really hard time getting a handle on the problem.

Where I am coming from is not purely from the Hindu POV.... The agnosticism and anti-exclusivism thinking come first in priority. My defence of Hinduism follows as a consequence of this- given that Hinduism is the largest non-exclusivist faith globally.

I think anti-Exclusivism, or one can say anti-Whiskerism could have become a religion in itself, and one would try to defend this God regardless of how much logic stares one in the face!

I think, that if tomorrow USA were to outlaw atheism and non-monotheistic belief systems, you too would protest. They may also pluck an arbitrary excuse out of their musharraf, call it liberlism, and say non-monotheistic religions have no place in America.

You would protest that that is an attack on the core beliefs of Hinduism. Well similarly it is not liberal to demand that Christians and Muslims start accepting the non-Uniqueness of God!

[Arjun]

Rajesh ji,

I think you misunderstand what I mean by exclusivism. Let me detail it out so it is clearer...

The way I see it, all religions have the following components-

1. The Faith part of the Religion (God, Prophet, Holy place, Holy book, Other symbols that denote faith, specific to that religion).
2. Customs and rituals (for worship, marriage, death, birth....can also be extended to food and certain other living habits)
3. Moral Precepts, core teachings and theology of the religion

Here's the basic problem that we are trying to find a solution to- The problem is that the religious divide between adherants of the major religions causes both disharmony that prevents social and economic progress and is also the direct cause of the bulk of global warfare, violence, bloodshed and terrorism.

What is the cause of this religious divide? It is the feeling that (a) the set of beliefs of one's religions are irreconcilable with beliefs of other religions and that the divergent beliefs cannot coexist and (b) supremacist feelings derived from the belief that one's religion is superior to others.

Can something be done about this issue? The argument can be that divergent beliefs and the feeling that one's solution is the correct one is the basis of any ideology in any field whatsoever and it would be foolish to try and reconcile religions based on different beliefs. Perfectly valid and good argument.

But then, lets analyze the issue further...I listed out the three components of all religions above. Of these components, one can have rational arguments and arrive at judgmental conclusions on items (2) and (3). Obviously one can have differing views regarding the teachings and moral precepts of a religion. While many customs and rituals cannot really be evaluated on a comparative basis, one can still evaluate them on the basis of possible impact of these customs on the environment, society etc and arrive at some judgement.

But category (1) is purely a matter of Faith. The items in this category cannot possibly be evaluated under any objective frame of reference, nor would it be possible to be judgmental in this category at all. Therefore, I am perfectly fine with Christians and Muslims or any other religion for that matter - to claim superiority of their religion on the basis of their theology / moral teachings or even their customs to the extent that these customs can be evaluated on the basis of some objective criteria. But, any religion that claims superiority over others on the basis of category (1) is being judgmental on an issue that one cannot possibly be judgmental over. That's what I term an 'exclusivist' religion, and having irreconcilable differences between religions on the basis of category (1) items is sheer foolishness that needs to be eliminated.

I don't see exclusvism as being opposed to mono-theism per se. I am fine with 'There is only One God'...but when it extends to 'There is only One God and His name is----' I have a problem. Let me even qualify this further and say that you can even name your God but what you cannot do is to question the validity of another name for the same God or question another religion's Faith component. That is what I mean by exclusvism.

Another way to look at it is that naming the one God has only one objective - that of organizing the flock of adherants. So the objective is not spiritual but political.

I think, that if tomorrow USA were to outlaw atheism and non-monotheistic belief systems, you too would protest. They may also pluck an arbitrary excuse out of their musharraf, call it liberlism, and say non-monotheistic religions have no place in America.

You would protest that that is an attack on the core beliefs of Hinduism. Well similarly it is not liberal to demand that Christians and Muslims start accepting the non-Uniqueness of God!

When one makes a definitive claim of superiority with regard to the Faith component of a religion and attempts to impose that same untenable claim on all adherants as well as uses this in obtaining new converts - I regard it as a 'dogma' that needs to be opposed. An atheist, if he tries to impose and spread the belief that there is definitely no God - is also propagating a dogma.

As an agnostic I believe that no-one can impose any dogma in matters of Faith (I am referring to the category (1) items of a religion and not the entire religion when I use the term Faith).

As a liberal, I would not be supportive of any dogma that is sought to be imposed in matters of Faith, whether by Theists or Atheists. You could say my fundamental position is 'anti-dogma' and I have defined what I mean by 'dogma' a few sentences above.

[Arjun]

A few of us have used the term 'exclusivism' to denote the most critical aspect of religious organization that is viewed as problematic.

Others have used different terminology to try and hone in on the problematic aspect of religions.

Some of these are-

1) Fundamentalism
2) Literalism
3) Political aspect of religion (Islamism, Christianism, Hindutva.....)
4) Proselytization (this is not exactly equivalent to the other terminology above, but given that this frequently comes up as a problem in such discussions, I am including in the list)
5) Destruction of Native Cultures

Which of these terms / ideas is most appropriate in order to move towards a solution? IMO, any solution needs to be evaluated along the following criteria-

a. Ease of reducing the concept / message to a few communicable and easily understood statements that can be the basis for a 'social compact'
b. How aligned is the idea to liberal ideals
c. Ease of translating the concept, at some stage, into a definitive schema that addresses nitty-gritties using a legal framework

As for fundamentalism and literalism, both don't seem to be very helpful concepts from the perspective of arriving at a solution. Why should fundamentalism be a problem at all ? - it all depends on the nature of the 'fundamentals' that one is adhering to...

Elimination of political aspect of a religion - this could be a useful concept. I have not explored how this can be taken forward as a solution that satisfies the three criteria above, but it could be promising...

Proseletyzation - difficult to completely bar proseletyzation from a liberal POV. What one can support is some regulation around how the proseltyzation is conducted.

Destruction of native cultures - Good solution using criteria (a) and (b), but not sure if it is easily translatable to the next level of detail.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh ji,

I think you misunderstand what I mean by exclusivism. Let me detail it out so it is clearer...

The way I see it, all religions have the following components-

1. The Faith part of the Religion (God, Prophet, Holy place, Holy book, Other symbols that denote faith, specific to that religion).
2. Customs and rituals (for worship, marriage, death, birth....can also be extended to food and certain other living habits)
3. Moral Precepts, core teachings and theology of the religion

There is a lot more to religion than the above.

Religion also means concentration of power by controlling a population using ideas, especially such ideas which on the one hand control the lives of the populace and secondly are impossible to disprove as they hinge on a version of the supernatural.

brihaspati garu has already alluded to this in his post, and another post of his directed at you.

Here's the basic problem that we are trying to find a solution to- The problem is that the religious divide between adherants of the major religions causes both disharmony that prevents social and economic progress and is also the direct cause of the bulk of global warfare, violence, bloodshed and terrorism.

What is the cause of this religious divide? It is the feeling that (a) the set of beliefs of one's religions are irreconcilable with beliefs of other religions and that the divergent beliefs cannot coexist and (b) supremacist feelings derived from the belief that one's religion is superior to others.

Basically none of the above. These is just rhetoric used by some given religious power elite to pursue domination and power.

The key is to clip the wings of this power elite, set down a list of dos and donts, which they have to abide by in all their actions and those of their followers.

I don't see exclusvism as being opposed to mono-theism per se. I am fine with 'There is only One God'...but when it extends to 'There is only One God and His name is----' I have a problem. Let me even qualify this further and say that you can even name your God but what you cannot do is to question the validity of another name for the same God or question another religion's Faith component. That is what I mean by exclusvism.

I have interpreted your concept of exclusivism correctly all along.

Again one needs to take a step back and understand that whatever one says of one's God, it is the content of the religion. It is WHAT ONE CLAIMS and the claim by itself need not constitute any truth. It is all subjective.

And the opinion of others should not disturb us one bit, only their actions matter.

Another way to look at it is that naming the one God has only one objective - that of organizing the flock of adherants. So the objective is not spiritual but political.

Finally we reach the truth (or so we claim )!

The religious group has a political motive. It is the political motive we need to foil. We can let the religious group practice their religion standing on a rock surrounded by burning coals. As long as they stay on the rock and sing, whatever they want, we are cool, but should they leave those confines and move, and act in a direction we do not wish, their feet would taste the smell of burning coals.

If however you start proscribing what the others are allowed to believe, then you will have a full-scale insurgency on your hands, and only philosophical mumbo-jumbo as an argument.

One should leave the whiskers alone!

[RajeshA]

a. Ease of reducing the concept / message to a few communicable and easily understood statements that can be the basis for a 'social compact'
b. How aligned is the idea to liberal ideals
c. Ease of translating the concept, at some stage, into a definitive schema that addresses nitty-gritties using a legal framework

<snip>

Destruction of native cultures - Good solution using criteria (a) and (b), but not sure if it is easily translatable to the next level of detail.

The Americans, from which the EJ threat comes, are aware of how they subdued native Americans into submission. They are very vulnerable to this accusation and rhetoric.

If one says, that "they are trying to do the same thing to Indians what they did to the native Americans", then the accusation would hit bulls-eye! And those advocating Freedom of Religion would get a big slap on their faces.

[Arjun]

Native Cultures protection & Action against political role of religions - both ideas have potential....Would be interested in implementable solutions on these fronts..

As regards exclusivism we will just have to agree to differ - we've gone through the cycle of trying to convince each other enough on these points...

In summary, there are basically two issues on which there is a fundamental divergence of views-

1. You believe that religions should not be barred from propagating any dogma whatsoever, howsoever reprehensible these might appear. You believe this is the liberal position from a standpoint of right to religion.

I believe it is critical to act against dogma, especially vitriolic dogma, propagated in the name of faith (this is also consistent with the views of those who call themselves 'liberal' Christians in the US)

IMO stuff like 'Homosexuals will eternally burn in hell', 'India is the land of Satan and devil worshippers', 'All Gods other than ---- are false" are reprehensible and need to be proscribed. Consider also the fact that there should not be a bar on any person wanting to start a new religion today...Does that mean that I can start a religion and propagate through the media stuff like 'All women are sluts', 'Christians are born from pigs', 'Pakistanis are a superior breed to Indians' or any other outrageous nonsense that I can think of? There is, therefore, a strong case for regulation on the public propagation of faith-based dogma.

2. You believe that proscribing such statements will lead to a full-scale insurgency by Christians & Muslims.

I believe that (a) the legal stance in many Western countries is moving as we speak- to just such a scenario of proscribing certain kinds of preaching as 'hate speech'. This has not and will not result in any massive insurgency in the Western nations and therefore nor will it in India (b) as the percentage of folks who believe in such exclusivist messages in India goes up, THAT would lead to full-scale civil war at some stage - far more so than the preventive step of proscribing these statements now doing the same.

A preacher in the UK who called homosexuality a sin was recently put behind bars....there are moves to file cases on preachers who call idolatry a sin. I believe events will take their own course without India having to anything - and the judicial system of the West would itself offer the right solution. So all I can say is, watch and wait!!

[brihaspati]

The UK method is actually more damaging than it is being appreciated for. It protects the right of preachers to continue the more damaging claims as divine revelations. The direction should be the other way - complete guarantee of the right to lambast anything and everything. Most revealed traditions can be torn down to shreds then.

By the way - islam has already insulated itself from criticism by the claiming the right to kill anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam - as part of divine revelation, and part of the belief system itself.

Game theoretic experiments and theory show that tit-for-tat is the only stable solution to grow cooperation. So maybe tit-for-tat rules are the way to go. If Islam denies the right to criticize to all else, then it will have no right criticize other faiths. If it seeks the right to kill any critique - then Islamics will have to agree that any Islamic who criticizes other faiths will also have to be killed. So on.

By the way, I think the way things are shaping up - the only way to go forward is to ahave debates to agree upon a set of common values applicable universally to all citizens, and then the rashtra recognizing only those values. Any attempt at using any other value system to come in between the rashtra and its citizens will have to be treated most ruthlessly, and simply blasted out of existence.

The basic biological needs of individuals and societies, its basic intellectual needs of right to information and education and research - has to be taken out of the power of religious organizations and ideologies. In the end it means creation of a set of comprehensive universally applicable values.

For India it means looking at the set of values that we had arrived at over long iterations. Long ago I posed this analogy of simulated annealing - whereby the search for the optimum is taken through a sequence of finding a local optimum and then deliberately shaking up or deviating in small controlled random steps to see whether the optimum is really global or just local - and whether a better optimum exists, and we are not getting stuck falsely in a local optimum.

This method is useful for surfaces that are not guaranteed to remain the same over time - just as social-objective "function" surfaces are likely to be. The "Hindu" has been doing this for a longer time than all other philosophies - and I have therefore greater confidence in its being far more advanced in the progress towards the global optimum than others. Two further reasons behind this thought are (a) that most other faiths have deliberately banned this continued optimization procedure and hence are likely to have taken a local optimum of a social function which is likely no longer existing and claims that as the global one (b) that the essential Hindu method is non-stationary and non-terminating - hence likely to move out of local optima of outdated social objective functions.

(b) allows me to justify revisiting even older "Hindu" conclusions and not adopt them now and still remain "Hindu".

thus a debate based on this core approach could proviude us with the nucleus that must be there at the foundation of the cell called rashtra. Otherwise bacteriophages will enter and replace the nucleus with its own genetic code.

[Arjun]

The UK method is actually more damaging than it is being appreciated for. It protects the right of preachers to continue the more damaging claims as divine revelations. The direction should be the other way - complete guarantee of the right to lambast anything and everything. Most revealed traditions can be torn down to shreds then.

By the way - islam has already insulated itself from criticism by the claiming the right to kill anyone who criticizes any aspect of Islam - as part of divine revelation, and part of the belief system itself.

B-ji

There are no easy answers to the question of free speech and what is to be done about those who take advantage of free speech for furthering virulent memes. The biggest champions of free speech in the West today are actually the evangelicals - so while I started out with the liberal premise that freedom of speech is absolutely vital and cannot be trifled with, I have come to question how much of the championship for free speech is actually coming from individuals who genuinely believe in liberalism as opposed to those who seek to promote exclusivist evangelism in the guise of free speech.

I think a good balance that takes care of liberal ideals would be the following- Exclusvist preaching conducted on the basis of 'divine revelation' or 'word of God' as a justification is to be treated as a 'dogma' that would be proscribed. However, as long as it is done based on any other intellectual or academic arguments which does not depend on divine revelation, that should be OK. As with any other principle I am sure there would be loopholes that would need to be further addressed - but I am just mentioning the general principle.

While I have no doubt you as an individual can tear to shreds the revealed traditions - yours is an intellectual argument. In terms of having effect on converting the masses, an intellectual argument cannot hold any candle to an organized religion with hordes of 'salesmen' who justify hate on the basis of 'divine revelation'.

Btw, for both Rajesh ji and you - let me state that this thread was created precisely to debate on what ideas are liberal and offer a solution to current challenges. Many of these are complex issues with no easy answers. Please feel absolutely free to use this thread as your own for shaping ideas or shoot down mine if you don't agree with them.

[brihaspati]

Arjun ji,
the same criticism that you level at the inadequacy of my "intellectual" arguments in convincing the masses - is actually applicable on your proposal to "proscribe" divine-revelation dogma. It will never be implementable in a society that already has the memes widespread.

This was why I said, in reality a feasible approach is to create an alternate value system as foundation for the nation. It needs both formal admin as well as political and pseudo-religious campaigns. To displace values - you need alternative values. No other concrete and feasible ways. To make it practicable we need to start it off from the pre-existing majority, and subtly enhance and modify elements that still make them popularly acceptable, but moves society towards the direction we want.

This is the main reason, I suggested the two principle I mentioned in another thread - coming from within our "traditions" but can be used to dispel elements that are obviously now problems. Ishwarchandra Vidyasagara supported the Hindu widow-remarriage act by sourcing it from Parasara Samhita. It did not become popular immediately of course. But weakened it over time in steps, and social circles.

[Arjun]

B ji,

I was using the term 'intellectual' argument for any argument that is based on reason and data as opposed to justifying on the basis of 'divine revelation'....so hopefully you did not mistake my terminology as specifically targeting you in any way. In fact your post was particularly insightful on a number of counts - & I largely agree with the points you've made. My contention is simply that as long as the revealed traditions use 'divine revelation' to justify exclusivist and hate messages targeted at non-followers, any effort to counter using intellectual arguments by any person whosoever will not be as effective in mass conversions, as long as the counter is not using the same tactic in portraying it as 'word of God'.

Basically what this creates is an 'unequal' playing ground...there are only two ways to make the playing ground level - Either all sides use the subterfuge of 'divine revelation' to justify their potshots at the other side, or none is allowed to partake of this subterfuge. There is logically no other way.

If as you suggest, the alternative of proscribing the use of this subterfuge is ruled out (I happen to believe there is an opening here - but more through the West than directly through India to begin with) - the only other option for a level playing field is to have Hinduism also make use of the same suberfuge...ie create an exclusivistic sect within Hinduism that claims divine revelation in taking potshots at non-followers and have it be 'organized' in the same fashion. In fact this ties in very well with your thoughts expressed here...

Game theoretic experiments and theory show that tit-for-tat is the only stable solution to grow cooperation. So maybe tit-for-tat rules are the way to go. If Islam denies the right to criticize to all else, then it will have no right criticize other faiths. If it seeks the right to kill any critique - then Islamics will have to agree that any Islamic who criticizes other faiths will also have to be killed. So on.

It is my belief as well that reciprocity is key to social relations, so your points above seem very valid...I would clarify though that I certainly don't mean reciprocity as in the 'bomb for a bomb' variety, but based on recourse to whatever means are permissible under the legal structure.

[Arjun]

Biblical monotheism and religious pluralism

Biblical monotheism and religious pluralism
Posted on July 14, 2011

The following is an academic paper by Bryon Morrigan and is being republished with the author’s permission. Bryon Morrigan (Bankim Chandra Kalidasa) is a Novelist, Screenwriter, and Historian in the United States of America.

The Philosophical Ramifications of Biblical Monotheism on Religious Pluralism

Throughout the history of humanity, religion has always been a factor. However, until the advent of Christianity and Islam, the concept of religious exclusivism, and the attendant need to convert others to the “correct” religious belief, was essentially anathema to most cultures. The concepts of monism, pantheism, or the belief that all gods were essentially one god, had been around for some time, but the idea of Biblical monotheism, the idea that not only was there a single god, but also that only one religious belief was “true,” and all others “false,” is a philosophical distinction that has serious ramifications for humanity as a whole. This paper will examine these issues from historical, philosophical, and moral points of view.

Note: For the purposes of this paper, unless otherwise specified or qualified, the term “monotheism” will be used in reference to the idea that there is one god and one “true” religion, and that the deities and religious systems of other religions are “false.” Often, the term “monotheism” is used to refer to belief systems which would more accurately be described as “monist,” “pantheist,” or “universalist,” but the author of this paper finds that such usage is counterproductive and fosters confusion. Also, the word “orthodox” will be used simply as an adjective describing rigid adherence to belief, as opposed to the various “Orthodox” churches in Christianity.

History

In contrast to the commonly-held belief that the ancient Hebrews were the first historically monotheist religious group, the concept actually originated with the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, later renaming himself as “Akhenaton,” approximately 3500 years ago (Kirsch, 2004, p. 22). But Akhenaton did not just invent monotheism. He used the full force and power of his status as absolute ruler to coerce and force his subjects into adopting this religious stance, even though they were thoroughly opposed to the new doctrine (Kirsch, 2004, p. 4). But upon the death of the pharaoh, the Egyptians returned to their original polytheist roots. Egyptologist Jan Assmann and Sigmund Freud have both written extensively regarding theories that Jewish monotheism was born from the failed experiment of the pharaoh, with Freud going so far as to opine that Moses himself was actually an Egyptian priest himself (Freud, p. 16, pp. 31-32).

Yet even in the Old Testament, there are many passages which exhibit the concept of henotheism, which is the worship of one god, while acknowledging that other gods exist (Kirsch, 2004, pp. 29-30). But it is during the period of the Old Testament, from Moses onwards, that the small core of exclusivist monotheists begin to enact wars, murder, terrorism, and all manners of wicked behavior, with the sole purpose being the enforcement of the new doctrine of exclusivity.

As Kirsch notes, the core value of monotheism is not contained in the few passages extolling caring and compassionate behavior. On the contrary, the primary essence of Biblical monotheism is exclusivism. He notes of the authors of the Bible:

They do not define wickedness and sin in terms of moral and ethical conduct. Indeed, they are far more concerned with the purity of religion than with the pursuit of justice. The very worst sin of all, as they see it, is not lust or greed, but rather the offering of worship to gods and goddesses other than the True God. Whenever a biblical author is moved to call something “abominable,” he is using a code word for every ritual and belief other than his own (2004, p. 35).

Throughout the historical record, there is a fairly clear conflict between the concepts of pluralism or universalism, and the concept of exclusivist, Biblical monotheism. While there were certainly battles between the ancient polytheists of the classical world and the Hebrews, the lack of a necessity for conversion or proselytism in Judaism ensured that they eventually came to a kind of “détente,” where groups like the Romans were able to broker a kind of cessation of hostilities between them. Of course, Jewish resistance to the Greeks and Romans had a great deal more to do with the ancient Hebrews not wanting to be subjects to another people than it had to do with religious intolerance, but even then, the Romans for example, did much to attempt to foster some kind of compromise, such as the attempt to bring the Hebrew god Yahweh into the Roman pantheon (Fox, 1986, p.261). But this kind of olive branch could only be one-sided, as Kirsch states:

Precisely because the monotheist regards the polytheist with such fear and loathing, peaceful coexistence between the two theologies is possible only from the pagan’s point of view and never for the true believer in the Only True God (2004, 12).

And here then, is the root of religious intolerance. It’s not the simple idea that there is only one god, but rather the idea that there is only one “true” god. Essentially, if one believes in a single deity, then one can adopt a myriad of different ways to deal with the ideas of other religions, ranging from the radical universalist view of accepting all beliefs as valid, exemplified by William James in his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, to the exclusivist view of narrowly viewing one’s own deity as the only valid deity, and ascribing to all others the motive of “evil” or “falsehood,” as in orthodox Christianity or Islam. Sikhs, for example, believe in only one god, but they also believe in a pluralistic world-view, allowing for the concept that other religions are also serving the same deity in different ways. Even though Sikhs have often been known for their martial prowess, there has never been a war to convert others to Sikhism, or a Sikh “inquisition,” or any of the other negative characteristics associated with Biblical monotheism.

Indeed, Assman has explored this concept extensively, noting that:

For these religions, and for these religions alone, the truth to be proclaimed comes with an enemy to be fought. Only they know of heretics and pagans, false doctrine, sects, superstition, idolatry, magic, ignorance, unbelief, heresy, and whatever other terms have been coined to designate what they denounce, persecute and proscribe as manifestations of untruth (2009, p. 4).

Philosophy

So if the core of this intolerance is not simply belief in a single god, is it then possible that a more philosophical component drives this kind of violent and coercive behavior on the part of Biblical monotheists? To continue to use the comparison between Sikhs and Biblical monotheists, there are two major issues that come to the fore. One is the belief in reincarnation, which could be viewed as having a “calming” effect on the need for proselytism. Religious groups that believe in reincarnation generally adopt a more “laissez-faire” attitude to conversion, owing to the idea that one will have many chances to “get it right,” as opposed to the time-critical necessity of conversion inherent in groups like Christianity and Islam, where they believe that failure to adopt the “correct” religion prior to death will result in eternal, supernatural torment.

The other issue is the conflict between “inner” and “outer” spirituality. Eastern religions, like Sikhism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, are primarily concerned with the inner spiritual journey of the person, whereas much of Christianity and Islam is concerned with outward actions. This is, of course, a bit of a simplification, but it does explain the difference between the spiritual goals of the average Sikh, Buddhist, or Hindu, as opposed to the missionary zeal of the Christian or Muslim. Generally, the Eastern philosophy is centered around the idea that one must seek enlightenment of their own volition, whereas the Biblical monotheist philosophy is often centered around spreading the “good news” and attracting new converts. Of course, there are many exceptions to this theory, such as the monastic orders of Christianity, and the Hindu “missionaries” of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, otherwise known as the “Hare Krishnas.”

However, the missionary activity of non-monotheist religions has never reached into the realm of coercion or warfare, in the way that it has for Biblical monotheist faiths. The 20th century Hindu writer, Sita Ram Goel, discussed the idea of monotheism as an inherently coercive force in his book, How I Became a Hindu:

I had an occasion to read the typescript of a book [Ram Swarup] had finished writing in 1973. It was a profound study of Monotheism, the central dogma of both Islam and Christianity, as well as a powerful presentation of what the monotheists denounce as Hindu Polytheism. I had never read anything like it. It was a revelation to me that Monotheism was not a religious concept but an imperialist idea. I must confess that I myself had been inclined towards Monotheism till this time. I had never thought that a multiplicity of Gods was the natural and spontaneous expression of an evolved consciousness (1993, p. 92).

Morality

Furthermore, the moral absolution of orthodox Biblical monotheism in regards to faith is one extreme obstacle to religious tolerance. For example, if one truly believes that he/she is acting on the will of God or Allah, and that conversion, by any means necessary, is the only way to save humanity as a whole, then one is unlikely to make any kinds of concessions or compromises with people of other faiths, regardless of how reasonable they may seem to the non-zealot.

Indeed, this abhorrence of compromise is a long-standing tradition, celebrated in the Bible, and extending from antiquity to the present. One incident from the distant past that stands out is the plea for tolerance and pluralism in the letter from the Roman senator, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, to the Christian emperor, Valentinian II, in 384 CE, as the persecutions against the polytheists were in full swing:

And so we ask for peace for the gods of our fathers, for the gods of our native land. It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe compasses us. What does it matter what practical systems we adopt in our search for the truth. Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret (384, p. 41)

To most non-exclusivists, that passage would evoke extreme sympathy. But to the orthodox Biblical monotheist, like Valentinian II, there is no moral quandary in denying these pleas for civility and tolerance. Their weltanschauung is well-defined by these words of the bishop Fulgentius, written approximately a century later:

Of this you can be certain and convinced beyond all doubt, not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics and schismatics will go into the everlasting fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels (Quoted in Clendenin, 1995, p. 71).

How can one truly expect a person who fully believes the above passage to seriously entertain any kind of pluralist or tolerant society? For that matter, how can one argue for tolerance and pluralism with one who believes that blowing up one’s self and killing innocent people will be heartily rewarded by Allah in the afterlife? Both of these kinds of world-views originate with the same kind of orthodox monotheism, even if neither can recognize the same kind of fanaticism in the other. The Christian terrorist who blows up an abortion clinic does not see a kinship with the Islamic terrorist who blows up a liberal mosque, but their ideology and morality stems from the same root, and many times even from the same Old Testament passages.

So what then is the solution? Is Biblical monotheism forever doomed to be the source of all religious intolerance? As noted before, the Sikhs have shown that the belief in a single god does not necessarily require hatred for all faiths that do not embrace one’s chosen deity and form of worship.

Perhaps the only way the Biblical monotheism can be “reformed” into a religion that respects the human rights of all people will be through example. Certainly, it cannot be done through brute force, which would be counterproductive, to say the least. For example, many Christians in the West have become inspired by the Hindu saint known as Mahatma Gandhi. One of the greatest symbols of Christian tolerance and morality in the 20th century, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., based much of his political philosophy upon the example of Gandhi. And yet Gandhi himself has spoken extensively regarding the problem of aggressive monotheism, saying:

It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? (1991, p. 87)

Indeed, when Gandhi pointed out his belief that such doctrines presented such a great danger to humanity as a whole, one might think that this would have been noticed more by the Christians that he criticized, but unfortunately, this statement was not immortalized on t-shirts and bumper stickers in much the same manner as many of his other, “safer,” statements.

But that is one of the central paradoxes of modern Christian thought. On one hand, Jesus is heralded as a figure of great love and selfless humanitarianism, while on the other, he is used as a bludgeon to smash upon the “infidels” and establish rigid adherence to a whole host of religious, political, and moral absolutes. Of course, this type of thinking is certainly not limited to Christians, as can be easily seen by comparing the more pluralist world-views of Sufi Muslims to that of the Taliban or Wahhabi-influenced sects of Islam.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is not the belief in one god that is the source of religious intolerance, but rather the belief that there is only one “true” god, and that all other religions or forms of worship are “false,” combined with the perceived necessity for proselytism. Proselytism itself, and the seeking of converts, is in fact a destructive action which undermines tradition and culture, and destroys families. It starts from the position that the person to be converted is inherently “wrong,” and seeks to replace his/her belief system with the “correct” one. As the great Hindu saint, Swami Vivekananda said at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893:

If we Hindus dig out all the dirt from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and throw it in your faces, it will be but a speck compared to what your missionaries have done to our religion and culture (Quoted in Gautier, 2000, p. 61).

But monotheism alone, even the belief that there is only “one” god, is not simply enough to create intolerance. The Sikhs and modern Jews are proof of this point. Nor even is proselytism itself, without being accompanied by a belief in “true” and “false” religion, as is shown by the example of the Hare Krishnas. It is only the combination of these two concepts that create religious terrorism, holy wars, jihad, theocracy, and religious hatred. If Christianity and Islam are to survive the next thousand years, they will need to mature into philosophies that can learn to live with their neighbors, without forcing them to change their beliefs, cultures and traditions. The Jews learned this approximately two thousand years ago, and it’s high time that the other “religions of the book” follow their example.

[Arjun]

In the context of some of our recent discussions, here's an interesting primer on religious dogma as well as a comparative assessment of its prevalence across various religions: Dogma

Hinduism and Confucianism emerge as the least dogmatic of the major religions....Is there any study correlating the presence / absence of religious dogmatism with historical developments and with scientific advancement?

I find the following quite interesting - (a) non-dogmatic religions have been prevalent in the most ancient civilizations and ones regarded as historically wealthy, (b) dogmatic cultures over the last 1000 years or so have dominated militarily over the non-dogmatists & (c) academic prowess in the West is increasingly associated with immigrants from non-dogmatic cultures. Any basis for correlating these facts, or is this faulty statistics?