6.3.3 |
DENOMINATIONAL INCLUSIVITY
INSTEAD OF RELIGIONISM |
To discriminate against us because of, or with respect to, our convictions
is to discriminate against us as persons, not as bodies like in the
case of racism and sexism.
To discriminate against us because of, or with respect to, our
denominational convictions, or
the
comprehensive ideology we
adhere to, is the most far-reaching form of discriminating against us,
since it is in our
inclusive doctrine itself that all
antidiscriminatory conceptions have coalesced to form a single, central
belief.
When we are or were discriminated against with respect to our
denominational convictions, we are or would be indirectly subjected to
any form of discrimination embraced or acquiesced in by the
religious or political ideology drawn on by the discriminator.
Discrimination because of our
neutral-inclusive doctrine, or one of
its inherent qualities, is not only wicked a single time directly, it is,
in addition, wicked a great number of times indirectly.
Such cannot be said of any other form of discrimination.
The discrimination of adherents of
the DNI, or of others, does not have to
consist of intentional acts, among which deliberate physical invasions; it
may simply consist of ignorance or neglect.
Thus, people who claim that they are against discrimination often
discriminate when they start to tell what they are against.
They may mention "discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin and religion" without realizing that human beings do not and need
not have a religion in the way they necessarily have a skin color
and a national or ethnic origin.
What is at issue in
nonreligionistic terms is, first of
all, whether a person adheres to a
denominational doctrine at all.
Denominational inclusivity is then the freedom and equality
of all people, whether they adhere to a denominational doctrine or
not; and if so, whether that doctrine is a religion or not; and
if so, whatever that religion may be; and if not so, whatever
that nonreligious denominational doctrine may be. The religious
liberty which excludes nonreligious denominational doctrines or
ways of life will therefore have to be substituted by
an inclusive ideological liberty and equality which comprises
both supernaturalist and non-supernaturalistic ideologies, both
theodemonist and
non-theodemonistic ideologies (assuming, of course, that there still are
people who believe in the supernatural and/or the
theodemonical).
In many countries no blood has been shed anymore between the followers of
different religious creeds since the introduction of religious liberty.
Religion-based discrimination and potential conflicts have been
replaced there by impartiality towards all religious denominations.
But not until the introduction of denominational or general ideological
inclusivity will discrimination and new potential conflicts between
incompatible, comprehensive or specialistic, ideologies be replaced by
impartiality towards all people.
The concept of ideological liberty and equality must be as
broad in orientation as feasible, and inadmissible generalizations
must be refrained from. It is common knowledge that some
ideologies (religious or nonreligious) have been, or still are,
viewed as products from foreign soil which would endanger
national security according to some people. This fact that a
doctrine originated on foreign soil can be used as a pretext to
outlaw that doctrine or to bring it into disrepute, also when
the established religion or political ideology itself originated
in another country or even in another continent. Sometimes the
followers of certain religious or nonreligious ideologies have
indeed shown exclusive loyalty to a foreign nation, but to
automatically consider all followers of such an ideology
unreliable is a generalization which is only meant to conceal or
rationalize an
exclusivist attitude. What should be
cause for political concern in the first place is religions or other
ideologies with a fuehrer at the top of an undemocratic,
hierarchical organization who is at once a foreign head of
state.
When such a person is a man who is the head of state of the, or one of the,
most religionist and sexist countries in the world, and also claims to
be infallible —in virtue of his supreme authority or words to
that effect—, there is indeed every reason to suspect that those
people who swear allegiance to (the duce of) such a totalitarian system
will or can be disloyal to a nonsexistic, democratic state which does not
discriminate between its citizens on the basis of their denominational or
other ideological convictions.
Where people of different religions (or interpretations of
one religion) massacre one another, it is the authoritarian,
antiveridical, exclusivist or
extremist foundation of their
outlook on life which is the source of this evil. But
also the relations between those who adhere to a religious ideology and
those who adhere to a nonreligious one can be subject to the
same forms of misery so long as at least one of those ideologies
is authoritarian, antiveridical, exclusivist and/or extremist.
It is in such environments that people with a different denominational
persuasion are ignored, maltreated or excluded altogether
from the common framework.
In traditional societies the intolerance and prejudicialness can, then,
even strike the denominations which are most closely related to the
official or dominant one, for it can be those very doctrines which most
markedly expose the adherents of the
paradigmatic ideology to an
alternative manner of living and thinking which challenges their conscious,
subconscious or unconscious doubt about their own manner of living and
denominational thinking.
Here too, it is the alienation from particular groups, in this case based
upon a certain denominational doctrine or ideology, which makes these
groups unknown and therefore liable to be disliked.
Except that such alienation and the concomitant injustice and, possibly,
violence is caused by an exclusivist attitude of those who exclude, it is
often also caused by the exclusivist belief of those excluded themselves,
for example, when they claim in any way that they belong to a chosen class
with special political, economic or other privileges, or
—worse— that they are 'the elect' of the supreme being
'Himself'.
A state in which laws, institutions, censorship, and so on,
are based on judgments derived from religious books and the
doctrines of religious organizations flouts denominational
inclusivity.
Altho reference to
those books and organizations is often suffused with a veneer of legal and
moral validity in such a society, every state law which is founded in one
or more religious tenets is, morally speaking, an offense or crime.
That is, such a law is an offense if the state regards a religious document
or statement as a reason in itself to proscribe or prescribe something.
No parliament, government or other state organization has the moral right
to make binding judgments for a whole territory on the basis of the
doctrinal tenets of an ideology which does not represent all citizens of
this territory, let alone on the basis of an ideology which exhibits a
sustained belief in phenomena for which the interindividual irreliability
is symptomatic.
Moreover, no person has a moral obligation to obey a state
constitution, law or regulation which opens or closes with one or more
theocentrist verbalisms, or which is
otherwise infected with the symbols of theodemonism or religion, if
'e does not adhere to a
theodemonist or religious ideology.
Such a state constitution, such a law or such an official regulation is
addressed to theocentrists, theodemonists or religous people exclusively.
(Similarly, no person has a moral obligation to obey a state
constitution, law or regulation which opens or closes with one or more
party-political verbalisms, or which is otherwise infected with the
symbols of a party-political doctrine, if 'e does not adhere to that
political ideology.
Such a state constitution, such a law or such an official regulation is
addressed to party-members and sympathizers exclusively.)
Any obedience to such a constitution, law or regulation is, if not
brutally enforced by the theodemonical or religious (or political)
followers in question, at the most of a strictly prudential,
utilitarian nature.
The right to personhood and
the norm of inclusivity cover
countless other fields than those of denominational inclusivity
in a political or legal context.
Yet, it is in these fields that we have to fight for our political freedom
of expression, assembly and association, for our right to be spared the
false or extremely implausible beliefs and the exclusivist emblems of
others, and for our legal and de facto recognition by the state as
citizens of no inferior status.
Only under these conditions can we adhere to the DNI as equals and can we
freely build on the ideals of
neutral-inclusivity and veridical
truth.
A state or governmental agency that attempts to further theodemonism and
supernaturalism is not only inimical to these ideals, it offends against
them and violates our personal rights, for we have never agreed and will
never agree to a state of that sort.
Like party-political exclusivism, religionism is a shortsighted strategy
too, as its perpetuation is once bound to backfire.
Theodemonical religionism will, if not abandoned, more and more antagonize
the adherents of modern secularism into themselves discriminating, if not
fighting, against all religious beliefs and
practises,
whether religionistic or not.
This will eventually be fatal for the traditional religion or
religions in question when a new, nonreligious doctrine, which
was in religionist times espoused by perhaps only a few, does
become the new denominational paradigm after having been gaining
ground rapidly. Should the discrimination of the adherents of
the new paradigm not have ended long before that moment, it will
be too late for the adherents of the old religion to sincerely
declare themselves in favor of denominational inclusivity or
equality.
Then, it will be too late for them to sincerely claim that the state ought
not to represent and propagate any form of denominationalism in particular.
This is especially important to keep in mind when the new paradigm will not
only be a present- and/or future-regarding, but a past-regarding, normative
doctrine as well.
Where state religionism continues to exist nevertheless, the
open or concealed penetration of state affairs by religion can
find expression in the wording of so-called 'national' anthems,
the so-called 'national' celebration of religious feast-days,
the system the head of state is incorporated into, the formation
of political parties or the representation of religious sects in
governments, the official tasks of the armed forces, and so on
and so forth. In religionist countries non-theodemonists are
expected to show respect for supernaturalist or theist anthems;
the rejoicing at exclusivist expressions of praise or worship is
thrusted upon people who want to be freed from them; citizens
or immigrants who want to become citizens are required to swear
for a representative of the still-existing or former state
religion; nonbelievers are politically treated as nonexistent;
and during wars conscripts have to risk their lives for a cause
which is mainly religious or in which religious-irreligious
differences play a crucial role. At the same time also religionist
countries pretend to represent all citizens and to be
democratic, but if they are 'democratic' at all, then in nothing
else than a cheap, majoritarian sense.
Something that both religionist and
politico-ideological totalitarians will often
allege is that a state could not be entirely impartial vis-à-vis
the religious or other ideological beliefs of its citizens, or that a
society would disintegrate if it did not embrace a common
doctrinal ideology (in
addition to, or instead of, a
metadoctrinal theory of
democracy).
Should those totalitarians be right, there is only one alternative for
the future: the disintegration of society must be prevented
or brought to a standstill by the general acceptance of our
doctrine as the new denominational one. If the unity of the
nation is really what state religionists and party-political
totalitarians are concerned about, they cannot refuse this
offer. Hence, the unity of every nation, or the unity of
humankind, shall either be attained by the universal adoption of
the ideal of denominational inclusivity or else by the universal
adoption of the ideal of inclusivistic denominationalism.
