What should we think of other people’s religions, if our biggest concern is equality?
It’s a simple question, but I think the answer reveals a fundamental divide in the approaches of realists and antirealists on the subject of other people’s beliefs.
The realists tend to fall into two camps on this question: the antitheists, and the liberals. Note, I’m not talking about economic liberalism here. I’m talking about the attitude of “all our faiths are equal, mine is the only real one, but you have a right to your beliefs.” Meanwhile, the antitheists see no religion as valid, and want to establish equality of belief by making everyone an atheist. These are two very different approaches to tolerance, but as I’ll explain later in this article, they both come from a single historical root: Rome.
I call the realists who tolerate others’ beliefs religious liberals because their concern is to respect other people’s freedoms. A more radical anarchist might try to solve for everyone’s respect of freedoms, and we’ll get to that in a bit. But religious liberals believe in a philosophy of “live and let live”. Many of them delight in diversity and like experiencing other cultures.
The problem I have with religious liberals is that I don’t think they’re radical enough. They tolerate, but I am not convinced they accept. They take a patronising attitude towards people of other religions, implying “I respect your right to be wrong”. I have heard the same complaint from Indigenous people who are not even antirealists, saying that religious liberals cannot meaningfully advocate for Indigenous freedoms, as long as they treat Indigenous religion as less than their own beliefs.
The antitheists are certainly more radical. They do not patronise. Instead, antitheists seek equality of belief through annihilation of belief. They think the only way to ensure equality between all the different religious groups is to call the whole thing off. It’s a surprisingly common sentiment. From the Soviet Union to John Lennon, antitheists have been saying “And no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace”.
However, as with the liberals, I find antitheism gets dicey when we look at Indigenous people. I do not know many antitheists of colour. It’s usually white people, proposing to wipe out large parts of other people’s culture, in the name of equality. I’m sure you already understand why this idea is poorly received by many. The ideals are all well and good when applied to the Abrahamic faiths, but most religions are not part of the white monoculture you can punch up at. To attack most religions is to punch down.
Neither of these realist approaches are seen as all that equal by the most vulnerable in society. And I think that’s because we can trace both of these approaches back to Rome.
Rome?
That’s right, Rome. See, Rome invented this really cool way of colonising people that was super effective, and it helped them grow to a huge size. And a lot of people are repeating these colonial tactics out of tradition today.
I’m sure you’ve heard about how the Romans stole the Greeks’ gods. That wasn’t just because they were peanut butter and jelly of how cool the Hellenic dieties were. It was a means of colonisation, called syncretism. Syncretism says “these two gods from two different cultures actually represent a common theme”. In Roman syncretism, this common theme was the One True Pantheon, of whom each culture actually worships cultural localisations. It’s sort of like if people decided that donuts and onigiri (rice balls) were just different cultural interpretations of the Super-Proto-Donut floating around in the Platonic realm of forms.
The advantage of Roman syncretism is that if you can get your subjects on board with the theory, then they cease to identify as a culturally distinct people than their oppressors. And that reduces the likelihood of rebellions. People don’t rebel when they don’t identify as distinct from their oppressors.
But then along came Christianity, and the old syncretism trick doesn’t work with a henotheistic religion. A henotheistic religion is a religion that worships only one god, but acknowledges many gods. The Bible is actually henotheistic. The first commandment is “you shall have no other gods before me”. It’s fine to believe in other gods that aren’t as cool as the big G. And when Moses went to Pharaoh to show off his cool new Jewish religion and turned a staff into a snake, the Egyptian priests prayed to their gods and turned their staves into snakes. The Bible absolutely portrays other gods as real.
There have been small monotheistic religions throughout history, including the Zoroastrians. When the Romans converted to henotheistic Christianity but still wanted to do religious colonisation, they decided to convert Christianity to monotheism. And thus, the entire world changed. The biggest empire in the world destroyed countless religions by saying “your gods are not real”. It was a defining moment in global history.
And it’s what both the antitheists and the religious liberals still believe. That religions are supposed to be exclusive. They’re following the Roman tradition, because they don’t know any other system. It’s no wonder that both approaches lean towards colonialism. They’re still operating within a colonialist metaphysical framework. Switching to atheism doesn’t automatically mean you abandon Christian metaphysics. That stuff takes work, and most atheists living in post-Christian western culture haven’t done that work.
Unreal Religion
So let’s talk about the people (and not-people) who have done the work to move outside the Roman metaphysical framework. The anarcho-antirealists.
Unreal anarchists have a simple yet genius approach to religious equality: Believe in all the gods and myths of all religions, except the exclusionary parts.
I’m a Dionysian, and last week I learned how to perform an Indigenous ceremony to talk to the Rainbow Serpent. I believe in Jesus, and Loki, and Sky Woman, and Ishtar, and Maui. Unfortunately, the version of Maui in My head is the Disney version. I should really go read some Polynesian myths to decolonise My perception of Polynesian religion.
And that’s what the Unreal solution to religious equality looks like.
A constant struggle to learn more and respect more, constantly shedding colonial brainwashing and getting closer to a true equality, tolerance, and acceptance within the mind and in one’s actions.
Care to join us?