Busker

\BUS-kur\, noun:
A person who entertains (as by playing music) in public places.

~~~~~~~

The principle of exclusion is an almost prolific trait of religions, seldom failing to appear beside promised salvation for believers and dire punishment for nonbelievers.

Theorizing broadly (and thus, merely musing), it seems to me that such an emphasis on the “we’re right, you’re wrong” mentality is almost mandatory to comply with religion’s dictates: absolute morality and absolute truth (in certain matters). As we can find these two faculties nowhere else in the universe, and they can essentially never be agreed upon, it is a given that whomever takes up one religion must obviously forgo the absolutes of every other religion promising the same thing. (There are obviously exemptions from this model, such as oft-referenced Buddhism.)

For how can there be two gods, claiming that only their followers will go to heaven? Certainly no religions speak of warring deities, fighting, much like their followers, for position in the cosmos. The stipulation that one group of persons possesses the ‘truth’ and all others are misinformed is often (but not always) a key element of religion, which serves 1. to circumvent the falliblism of the quandary often called into greatest question (which is why religious authority in the older centuries (and today) referred to faith as a virtue, and considered it more thoughtful than reason), 2. to create a sense of solidarity among believers, enhancing the reasons to believe and, 3. to induce a indelible security that cannot be provided by science—a lifelong sense of purpose (however esoteric) and a compassionate, powerful father-figure.

These stipulations solve many of the most profound human insecurities—the fear of being wrong (absolute truth), the desire to live the ‘right’ way (absolute morality), the desire to be special (purpose, as well as paternal eyes personally concerned with each individual). But these are only mere speculations as to how religion conforms to insecurities, and not enough, on their own, to poke definitive holes in the notion that religions do indeed provide the truth.

However, the exclusion principle is often the most harmful, and the most difficult to circumvent. When one’s conclusion depends on such a principle (again, how can anyone else be right (about these questions) when one has absolute truth?), and especially when that conclusion includes violent and cruel punishment for any who disagree, this exclusion principle can easily produce irreconcilable dissonance.

So I agree with Clark, there needs to be a common ground. And from my experiences, people (religious and not) are certainly not opposed to it. We don’t want to war with one another (most of the time) merely due to different beliefs, even if those beliefs condemn some and not others, because, in a sense, the humans maintaining those beliefs, to me at least, are more compassionate than certain forms of god himself—willing not only to get along with, but be compassionate toward and love those who believe differently than they (of course there are many, many others less tolerant as well). It is in suspending judgment of one another on these grounds that diversity can be maintained, and neither side need die out, but continually agree on a set of ever-inclusive principles. But perhaps that is too hopeful.