To be a member, a religion may insist that it is impossible join. A person can only be born into it. Or they may insist that only through the mother can one become a member.
I suppose every religion should have a right to be exclusive. Is this discrimination? Perhaps maybe even immoral and shows an inconsistency in the teachings. Of course inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing. As Oscar Wilde has noted: Consistency is the refugee of the unimaginative.
Joseph Tham
I think that should not be exclusive Because religion includes the categories of society without discrimination or else how will be honest and positive and a source of security and love and nobility? If it was exclusively out of the realm of religions and may become an association or party or current.
Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak Please share your ideas so that we may learn from you.
Can we show somehow that there is a path to salvation (that the path exists) and it is unique? This will greatly help me in my calculations. First, if it does not exist, then why worry. Not sure if this would refute Pascal's Wager.
However, in case, it is unique, then I need to now. If there are multiple paths, can we put an upper bound on the number of paths?
I think W.K. Clifford addressed the deeper issue underlying your question "Is it immoral for a religion to be exclusive?" in his 1877 essay, "The Ethics of Belief":
https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Clifford.pdf
Joseph Tham
I think that should not be exclusive Because religion includes the categories of society without discrimination or else how will be honest and positive and a source of security and love and nobility? If it was exclusively out of the realm of religions and may become an association or party or current.
Suppose the principle of the religion says that a person can only be born to be in that religion. It is not possible to convert. What is immoral about that? It is a fundamental principle of the religion. Please explain with specific reasons.
A religion that prohibits conversion may be more peaceful because there is zero pressure for the believers to convert people (it is impossible according to the fundamental principle of the religion) and thus there is no need to save the souls of the kaffirs. It makes no sense to try and spread the religion. Your religion is an element of your destiny or fate, already arranged by the Al-Mighty, Al-Majeed (the Glorious, the most Honorable), Al-Ghaalib (the Victor, the Predominant).
Conversion is a double-edged sword. A religion may not seek to convert outsiders (let God deal with them) but it may also not allow insiders to convert to outsider beliefs (let us deal with them for God). A religion that did both would either be employing a moral double standard or adopting an inconsistent stance regarding destiny or fate.
"Your emotional capacity is an empty motor, and your values are the fuel with which your mind fills it. If you choose a mix of contradictions, it will clog your motor, corrode your transmission and wreck you on your first attempt to move with a machine which you, the driver, have corrupted.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
PS. It's often the unimaginative who fail to recognize inconsistencies.
PPS. It's "refuge", not "refugee".
Thank you for the correction. Most kind of you!!!!
outside now. Will reply soon
"Americans, unhappily, have the most remarkable ability [...] to transform their moral contradictions, or public discussion of such contradictions, into a proud decoration, such as are given for heroism on the field of battle.” ― James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son
Karl Pfeifer
Perhaps a religion should not prevent a person from leaving.
If a person can ONLY be born into a religion, then the religious elders and leaders have no control on entry. Certainly, they can leave. It is difficult to prevent people from leaving.
Just like migration. A country restricts entry but generally does not prohibit exit.
An exclusive religion would surely struggle to survive. The Abrahamic religious offshoots have gained immense traction through intense, well designed conversion techniques based on offering immortal life and ideological opposition to react competitively against. Without both they would have died through ridicule.
Stanley Wilkin In your opinion, is Hinduism struggling to survive? Hmm. Not so sure.
No, Joseph. But Hindism is perhaps not suited to my hypothesis in that Muslem incursions in the 13th century onward caused it to be itself more aggressive to survive. It imitated elements of Muslem behaviour. Also as Buddhism is surely an offshoot it does seem to have been caught up within conversion tropes.
I feel you are talking about Judaism. As you can only inherited the religion through your mother side and not convert from any other relogion and this is the only inherited religion in the earth.
Religions are like clubs. And every club has its own set of rules. To paint all clubs in the same colors would be non-contributory as people would just be following the same pattern. Something like sci-fi movies such as Equilibrium. ☺️
The idea of exclusivity and inclusivity in religious beliefs and practices has been understood in various different ways. The most popular understanding of the idea pertains to the issue of the possibility of post-humus spiritual salvation outside one’s own faith system. The popular Muslim way of posing the issue is to ask the question whether or not non-Muslims can enter heaven in their life after death. In this context, it is said that if one agrees with such a possibility then he or she is considered as adopting an inclusive religious belief. If on the other hand one denies such a possibility, then one’s religious belief is said to be exclusive. Exclusivity and inclusivity in the sense just defined are not unique to any particular religion. In any religion we may observe the presence of exclusivists among many of its followers. Likewise, in every religion are to be found believers who are inclined to adopting inclusivity.
For the exclusivists their fear of inclusivism is as though they are in danger of losing their own faith if they were to admit the possibility of spiritual salvation outside their religion. Upon casual observation of the religious scene it appears to be too obvious that in any religion believers in exclusivity far outnumber believers in inclusivity. The issue before us is how we can explain this phenomenon of the presence of both types of believers within the same religion. Of special interest to us in this discussion is the answer to the question of whether the existence of both types of believers has something to do with factors external to the religion such as theological influences from another religion, or it is a consequence of the religion’s intrinsic teachings. In the latter case we need to see which group of believers has a better claim of having their theological position well grounded in the teachings of the religion.
Fares, it is possible that exclusivity is based in the roots of monotheism, which you mainly dwell on, in national gods of the Middle East/a phenomenon associated with militarism and national expansion. Such gods reached palestine with the Assyrian advance. Exclusivity has thereby roots in attack, defence and contesting polities.
in the 9th and 8th centuries national gods such as YHWH and the god of Moab, for example, were attached to the governing elite and were not actually national gods. In the famous Moab inscription, YHWH is an afterthought associated with the Israelite royal house. Evidence suggests that worship of other gods in the area was widespread.
Emre Pakdemirli
I think you cannot become a Hindu but I could be wrong. Experts please help us with this question.
A harijan is a harijan and a Brahmin is a Brahmin. Of course, there is always the hope that with reincarnation, things can be different, Buddha willing.
Arben J Salihu
Out of curiosity, may I ask at what age you chose your religion from the various options that were open to you for an informed choice?
Dear Joseph you may be right as I don’t know very much about Hinduism and besides Judaism this seems to be another inherited religion. There may be much more , particularly Amazon tribes with no interactions with the outside world may have religion which does not accept outsider. Good discussion topic, many thanks Joseph Tham wry much appreciated.
Thank you for your answer Arben J Salihu
. I think you are unusual in that many followers of a religion do not make a choice but are simply socialized into it from a early age, although some do choose to affirm or confirm their already existing faith at some later point in their lives. But again, may I ask why exclusivity was the key factor for you? For example, why would a religion like Ba Hai, which "teaches the essential worth of all religions, the unity and equality of all people, and the equality of the sexes" (Random House Unabridged Dictionary) and does not view Islam as incompatible in the way that other religions might, not have been a satisfactory option? (NB: I am not myself a follower of Ba Hai, but I am often puzzled by reactions to that religion.)
true religion is never owned by human being(s) or any individual, rather it is by the almighty Lord of the heavens and earths. So only the Lord have the power to describe the dos and don'ts in the religion. The message in the religion is to convert people from that which is against its commands, so it can't be by the wishes of others.
I would like to convert and be a Hindu Brahmin with all of the privileges thereof. Is it theoretically possible? If yes, what are the protocols and procedures? I am tired of being a mere teacher. I think it will be lots of fun to be a priest.
Choosing a religion is quite different from choosing a fruit. I can try many different fruits, and over time, I can say that I prefer a durian over a mango.
In selecting a religion, it is not based on comparing the religious experiences of many DIFFERENTT religions and then picking one.
One rarely has a choice in the matter, and in some religions, if you leave the religion, the penalty for apostasy (or heresy) is death.
Arben J Salihu
Do you believe that there is one and only one way to Paradise and Everlasting Existence? Or are there many paths?
Arben J Salihu
In theory, is it possible for a non-believer (a Cafirlito, since I cannot use the offensive k-word on RG because they will delete it and send me a strict warning) to reach Jannat?
Totally agree with your answer Dear Fares Aboushnaf great discussion
Mere exclusiveness is not the most important issue. What matters, morally, is how exclusiveness is manifested and acted upon, i.e. its consequences. Most religions takes themselves to have the one and only correct view. Fine, as long as they don't conduct inquisitions or holy wars or otherwise harm those who don't hold that view.
1. Religion is faith of followers guided by religious 'Truth'.
2. Freedom of religion in democracy is good and protect all religious on constitutional grounds without authoritative penetration via natural rights.
3. Freedoms under definition is to protect the freedoms of others.
4. Religious diversity with respect to civilization or public order is good and reinforce stability amongst inhabitants.
5. Enlightenment of Knowledge for betterment of human life or inherent protection of personal liberty have been incorporated in different religions by 'GOD'.
"Donot believe in everything and always believe in something for efficient human inertia during life"
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching