Chapter II - Faith and Freedom: a Pluralistic Look at Religion

 

I the Lord thy God am a jealous God ... Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye possess served their gods.

The Bible

 

Whoever, by whatsoever means approaches me, I accept him for his salvation... All creatures great and small - I am equal to all; I hate none, nor have I any favorites.

The Bhagavadgita

 

 

1. Christianity Today: Exclusivism in a Pluralistic World

The two passages cited at the head of the chapter - one from Moses of the Bible, and the other from Krishna of the Bhagavadgita - underscore the fundamental difference that separates an exclusivist creed from an evolved pluralistic tradition. To understand the true dimensions of the crisis that the Church is faced with, and its irrational reaction to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one must be prepared to examine the foundation of Christian faith - both its seeming fragility in the face of reason, and its increasing irrelevance in a pluralistic world. The same is true of Islam, but that is not our concern at this time.

In order to understand the inordinate fear of enquiry that is an inseparable part of the Church psyche, and the extraordinarily violent history that has been its harvest, it is necessary to recognize the fundamental fact that Christianity - like Islam, but unlike Hinduism or the religions of ancient Greece - is founded on a doctrine of exclusivism: it rests on the claim that 'truth' can exist only as it was revealed by God through His Only Begotten Son - Jesus Christ. Anything that is seen to be in conflict with this revealed 'truth' is automatically reviled as falsehood - and a pernicious doctrine to be suppressed. The same is true of Islam in which 'truth' has been revealed by God to his chosen apostle Muhammad the Prophet. It is held to be beyond reason or questioning.

In each of these exclusivist creeds, man can know God only through the chosen human medium. Enforcing the revealed truth on the flock as the only legitimate belief is the task for the clergy. This also demands unquestioning acceptance of Jesus as the Only Son of God, or, in the case of Islam, of Muhammad as the last and the greatest of Prophets. This is what makes both Christianity and Islam exclusivist - for they reject all other paths; they have tried also to suppress all dissent - by violent means when necessary.

This concept of exclusivism is most easily understood when contrasted with the pluralism of Hinduism and ancient Greek thought, neither of which acknowledges any human intermediary as having an exclusive claim over God's truth. Hinduism - like the religions of pagan Greece - grants primacy to personal experience and not any fixed doctrine as revealed to a chosen medium. No scripture or 'book' in Hinduism is the ultimate authority in the sense of the Bible in Christianity or the Qu'ran in Islam. Nor can any human claim to be in exclusive possession of truth as the chosen human intermediary. Without such claim, however, neither Christianity nor Islam can exist.

To the Hindu, on the other hand, any such revelation can be at best one of many paths; and this is the essence of pluralism. In Hinduism, every man, woman and child is free to explore their own path, and stands on the same footing as the most exalted personage. The same was true in ancient Greece; here, too, there was no place for a chosen human medium claiming exclusive access to God's truth. God has no favorites: remember Krishna's words: "All creatures great and small - I am equal to all; I hate none, nor have I any favorites."

For this reason, Hindu thinkers regard Christianity and Islam, each with its own founder claiming to be the chosen medium of God, as paurusheya or 'man originated'; Hinduism is a-paurusheya or 'not man originated'. This distinction will become clearer as we expand on it a little later on. It is a crucial concept that helps one understand the trauma of Christianity in the face of the revelations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (paurusheya is derived from purusha - Sanskrit for man.)

The eminent Hindu thinker Ram Swarup has provided a succinct description of the doctrine of exclusivism - sometimes called 'Semitic exclusiveness' - that is an integral part of spiritualism through a chosen human medium. This is the doctrine upon which both Christianity and Islam are founded:[1]

 

The spiritual equipage of Islam and Christianity is similar; their spiritual contents, both in quality and quantum, are about the same. The central piece of the two creeds is 'one true God' of masculine gender who makes himself known to his believers through an equally single, favored individual... [This 'favored individual' is the purusha of paurusheya religions.]

The whole prophetic spirituality whether found in the Bible or the Qu'ran, is mediumistic in essence. Here everything takes place through a proxy, through an intermediary. Here man knows God through a proxy; and probably God too knows man through the same proxy. [This 'medium' or proxy is again the purusha.]

In fact, to these religions, the chosen individual is not merely an intermediary, he is also a saviour, a mediator. He intercedes on behalf of his flock with God. He can even delegate his authority to his disciples, who, in turn, appoint their own officials who too have the power to "bind and loose." As a result, these religions tend to deal not with God but God-substitutes.

 

The authority for this spiritualism by proxy is found in the Old Testament, in the part known as Deuteronomy (18.18): "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, ...and will put my word in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This virtually defines exclusivism, which implies that the intermediary is the exclusive spokesman for God - and there can be none other. It also means that man cannot know God save through the intermediary; there is no direct access. This exclusion of direct knowledge of God automatically shuts out alternative paths of exploration; it is the very antithesis of pluralism and freedom of choice that our modem civilization - like that of ancient Greece - values so highly. There can be no freedom of choice without tolerance of pluralism. Exclusivism has the opposite goal of pluralism: enforcement of uniformity of conduct and belief - and even thought - by whatever means as seen fit by the enforcers. In practice, however, uniformity has proven unattainable. In a now famous passage Thomas Jefferson wrote:[2]

 

Millions of innocent men, women and children since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned - yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools the other half hypocrites.

 

It is not being suggested here that the average Christian man or woman is basically intolerant, which is far from true; Christian societies have themselves been among the worst victims of tyranny in the name of religion. What we are interested in are the underlying doctrines at the epistemological level. It is in the nature of every exclusivist doctrine to divide humanity into two mutually exclusive camps of believers and non-believers - of us against them. This can be seen quite clearly in the contrast offered by the following two statements: the first Biblical, the second from the Bhagavadgita.

 

He that is not with me is against me. (Matthew 12.30)

 

Those who worship other Gods with devotion, worship me. (Bhagavadgita 9.23)

 

The difference between exclusivism and pluralism could hardly be more clearly expressed. And this exclusivist division invariably leads to further subdivision, which does not stop at any predetermined point; there are no indivisibles as far as theology is concerned. This is clear from history and also from the current state of Islamic societies.

Conflicts instigated by believers are an inevitable consequence of this division. This has been the history of both Christianity and Islam. The aggressor has always invoked his exclusivist doctrine as justification for his aggression. It is helpful to recognize that exclusivism lies at the root of intolerance. This is what Jefferson and other rationalists of the Enlightenment saw and objected to. As just noted, Hindu thinkers have also seen this human-centered exclusivism that is part of both Christianity and Islam.

This notion of knowledge of God through an exclusive human agent as medium or sole authority is effectively captured by the aforementioned Sanskrit word paurusheya - or 'man-originated'. Hinduism, on the other hand, is a-paurusheya - or 'not-man-originated'. In such a system every man, woman and child is free to seek knowledge of god through his or her own efforts; it is not a path controlled by a human Prophet or a Son of God claiming exclusive possession of access to the divinity.

This difference bears repeating - for it is a little understood, yet highly significant, difference between the revealed creeds of Christianity and Islam, and the accommodation of pluralism that is part of Hinduism as it was in pagan Greece. Recognizing their exclusivist basis helps one understand the history of conflict that is so much a part of both Christianity and Islam. They cannot afford to let their followers explore unauthorised paths. Hence the need for a truth-monitoring thought police calling itself the 'clergy'.

In the pluralistic Hindu and Greek traditions, on the other hand, all knowledge of God that an individual acquires, is acquired directly, and not through any human intermediary acting as God's spokesman and gatekeeper. In these, it is the right of every man, woman and child to seek such knowledge through personal effort. Hinduism includes empirical methods like Yoga aimed at assisting an individual to realize the goal of learning about God. Greek mystics like Pythagoras also practiced meditation with the same goal in mind. All such knowledge - acquired directly from God without a human intermediary is clearly a-paurusheya - or 'not-man-originated' - for God alone is the source of that knowledge. Any scripture or human teacher is there only to guide and assist, not to enforce any belief: this is another key difference between exclusivism and pluralism.

 

2. Sources of Pluralistic Thought: Greece and India

 

Hindu scriptures are collections of such a-paurusheya wisdom acquired through the ages by various sages through their realized knowledge of God. It is in this sense that the Vedas - the greatest of all Hindu scriptures - are regarded as a-paurusheya. The sages themselves - the authors of the Vedic hymns - are human and historical, but the knowledge that they realized and passed on to future generations is a-paurusheya. This knowledge includes laws governing the cosmos which are clearly a-paurusheya - being not man originated; their realization may be the work of a human sage - like Newton's discovery of the Universal Law of Gravitation. The cosmic law itself which the sage Newton discovered and described is a-paurusheya. The validity of a universal law, like the proof of a mathematical result, does not rest on the authority of any purusha.

Another fundamental difference is that Hindu scriptures - unlike the Qu'ran and the Bible - carry no authority; they are meant only to be guides representing the wisdom and experience of others. A seeker is free to question, choose and deny. This freedom of thought and of choice lies at the heart of the pluralistic heritage of Hinduism, as indeed it did in ancient Greece. Pythagoras was just such a mystic from ancient Greece. He and his school had close affinities to Hindu mysticism. He is even believed to have studied at the famous school of Taxila in north-western India. (Pythagoras had little to do with the so-called Pythagorean theorem in geometry which was known at least two thousand years before him.)

The multiplicity of gods found in the Hindu and the Greek pantheons is a reflection of the multiplicity of pathways explored by their thinkers, and the freedom of spirit that any such seeking entails. Hindu god, like the Greek god is a personal god - as diverse as the individual. He is not the one and only God forced upon the believer by a God-substitute claiming exclusive access to God. This also accounts for the extremely rich mythologies of India and Greece. As physicist and philosopher Fritjof Capra wrote:[3]

 

The rich Indian imagination has created a vast number of gods and goddesses whose incarnations and exploits are the subjects of fantastic tales... The Hindu... knows that all these gods are creations of the mind, mythical images representing the many faces of reality. On the other hand, he or she also knows that they were not merely created to make the stories more attractive, but are essential vehicles to convey the doctrines rooted in the mystical experience.

 

The problem that every mystic faces is the limitation of ordinary language in expressing one's mystical experience. Just as a physicist has to use mathematics, a mystic has to use myth to convey his knowledge and experience. The well known art historian and critic, the late Ananada Coomaraswamy said: "Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be expressed in words." (Capra, ibid.)

The Greeks were also a highly mystical people who also created an extremely rich mythology. It is a serious mistake to regard them as 'rational', ignoring their mystical side. Neither the Greeks nor the Hindus saw the two - the rational and the mystical - as mutually exclusive. Greek civilization, like the Hindu, was pluralistic in a profound sense: it not only tolerated different pathways, but even saw the mystical and the rational as part of the same seeking. It suffered a great contraction when it lost its pluralistic heritage and spiritual freedom to the exclusivist doctrine of Christianity; for all practical purposes it became extinct. As Dante wrote:

 

The greatest gift that God in his bounty made in creation, and the most conformable to His goodness, and that which He prizes the most, was the freedom of the Will, with which the creatures with intelligence, they all and they alone, were and are endowed.

Paradiso V.19

 

The ancient Greeks were also aware of the need for illumined insight through the application of intellect. Even though they did not analyze the implications of revealed doctrines in terms of the paurusheya concept as the Hindu sages did, the Greeks were aware of both the need for intellect and the dangers of claimed revelation. Apollonius warned a king:[4]

 

Avoid the kind that claims to be inspired: people like that lie about gods, and urge them to do many foolish things.

 

A similar warning against seemingly inspired words coming from a human source was given by the Hindu philosopher Madhva in his work Vishnu Tatta Nirnaya:[5]

 

Never accept as authority the words of any human (purusha); they are subject to ignorance and deception. No paurusheya text can be taken as authoritative by attributing infallibility to a human. One deludes oneself in believing that such a man - infallible and free from deceit - existed and he alone was the author of the text.[6]

Contrast this with the claim of Moses as the word of God: "And he shall speak unto you all that I shall command him." The essence of the ideas stated by Dante and Apollonius was expressed with exceptional clarity and power many thousand years earlier by the Vedic sage Vishwamitra in his famous Gayatri mantra (Rigveda, 111.62.10):

 

I pay homage to the supreme grandeur of the divine creative light, that it may inspire our intellect.

 

Vishwamitra saw God as the spirit that 'inspired the intellect'. This gets to the heart of the mystically inclined civilizations like those of ancient India and Greece: their sages saw no essential difference between the mystical impulse, and rational thinking: the one inspired the other. A theocratic doctrine sees religion and the exercise of secular power as inseparable; a spiritual tradition on the other hand regards the mind - the seat of reason, and the soul - the source of mysticism, as a unity. Sages like Vishwamitra and Socrates would have seen any exclusive division between the two as artificial and shallow.

A modern sage who also saw this fundamental unity of spirit and reason was Albert Einstein who said: "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. ...It is the source of all science. "[7]

The Gayatri mantra (prayer) of Vishwamitra is an affirmation of this spiritual unity. This is the spirit that was lost by Greece, a loss from which she has still not recovered. It is again this spirit that lies at the heart of the millennia-old heritage of Hinduism. It is also this spirit and freedom that the Church - and the mosque - have sought continually to suppress and extinguish, seeing it as the great enemy of their closed creeds.

The Greek God, like the Hindu God, is the goal of a search within the self. Like the Hindus, the Greeks also recognized that God is ultimately unknowable and any search for knowledge about God has to be ultimately a search within the self as to what God means to the seeker. Socrates expressed the awe and the mystery of this seeking when he said (Dialogues of Plato, Crarylus, 400-401):

 

Of the Gods we know nothing, either of their natures or of the names by which they call themselves. ...but we are enquiring about the meaning of men in giving them these names.

 

This is similar to the Hindu way of looking at the question as a search within oneself - the seeker. In fact, this brings Socrates close to the sages of the Upanishads who described Brahma as "invisible and incomprehensible." Vedic seers saw the Rigveda as the gift of God, and its language as 'Language of the Gods'. And yet they recognized that it was beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals to grasp all its hidden meanings. Dirghatamas, probably the most mystical of the Vedic poets put it this way:

 

Four are the levels of speech. Three concealed in mystery cannot be bestirred. Their meaning known only to the supremely wise, men speak only in the fourth.

Rigveda 1.164.45

 

How then does the sage perceive cosmic truth? Dirghatamas provides a quintessentially pluralistic answer:

 

Cosmic reality is one, but the wise perceive it in many ways: As Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, mighty Garutmat, Yama, and Matarisvan - the giver of breath.

Rigveda 1.164.46

 

This links the pluralistic pantheon to the diverse pathways of the human search for cosmic truth. The Hindu God, like the Greek God is a personal God - the goal of knowledge to be attained through a search within the self. This is reflected in the teachings of ancient Indian and Greek sages. "Accept nothing on my authority. Think, and be a lamp unto thyself," urged the Buddha. "Know thyself!" said Socrates. "You are," said the sage of the ancient Chandogya Upanishad, "that which you are".

In summary, the Hindu and the Greek God is internal to the seeker - therefore as diverse as the individual. He is not the One and Only God imposed upon the believer by an external authority claiming exclusive access to God. Greek civilization underwent a great contraction when it lost its pluralistic heritage and spiritual freedom to the exclusivist doctrine of Christianity; for all practical purposes it became extinct.

 

 

3. Scripture and Authority

 

In such a scheme based on personal experience and exploration, as opposed to the authority of an exclusivist medium, it is the message that counts. The greatness of the Bhagavadgita as a pluralistic scripture resides in its message. Even without Krishna, the medium, the message remains. In contrast to Islam and Christianity which are historical religions, it is not possible to trace the birth of Hinduism to any historical person or period. As a result, if a great Hindu sage like Krishna or Vishwamitra is found not to be a historical person, it is of little consequence to Hinduism - for it is their message that matters; Hinduism is, after all, a-paurusheya. This is in striking contrast to revealed religions - Christianity for instance - in which the whole structure collapses if Jesus is found to be not a historical person.

Another way of looking at it is to say that Hinduism is a-paurusheya whereas Christianity is paurusheya, deriving both its legitimacy and its authority from the word of a purusha called Jesus Christ. This of course lies at the root of the problem of Christianity: if the purusha called Jesus is shown to be not historical, the paurusheya religion called Christianity can hardly exist.

In addition, in the pluralistic Hinduism - as was also the case in pagan Greece - one is free to question both the message and the messenger - a freedom not granted in revealed religions. There is no enforcing authority in Hinduism like the clergy of Islam and Christianity, for there is no dogma and no exclusivist doctrine to enforce. Great centres of Hindu orthodoxy - like Sringeri, Kanchi, Udupi and others - represent only different traditions and schools of thought, they have no enforcing authority. A religious figure like the late Paramacharya ('Great Teacher') of Kanchi may be greatly revered as a sage, but his pronouncements carry no authority. He issues no fatwas that even an illiterate mullah can do with impunity in the name of Allah. For the same reason, there is also no such thing as heresy in Hinduism. Any religious or philosophic doctrine must stand or fall on its merits, it cannot rest on exclusivist authority as the word of the only agent of God.

This free-spirited approach of Hinduism is expressed in the following famous line from the Rigveda:

 

Let good thoughts come to us from everywhere.

                                                            Rigveda 1.89.1

 

As one can see, this is the very antithesis of exclusivism with its single authoritative source. Another example, the essence of universality as expressed in an ancient source - the Shivamahimna Stotra, verse three, attributed to Gandharva Pushpadanta:

 

As numberless rivers following different paths - straight or zigzag - merge in the same ocean, so too the aspirants of various tastes and capacities reach thee through effort.

 

Part of the same idea is stated more simply by Krishna in his great theophany of the Bhagavadgita. Here are two examples:

 

Whoever, by whatsoever path approaches me, I accept him for his salvation.

Bhagavadgita 4.11

 

All creatures great and small - I am equal to all; I hate none, nor have I any favorites.

Bhagavadgita 9.29

 

This has the effect of undermining the claim of any 'prophet' as the exclusive agent of God - for God has no favorites. Viewed in this light, each and every one of us has the same access to God through our own efforts; we can all be prophets. Contrast this universality with the exclusivist demand of the Biblical God Yahweh - the terrific 'jealous God' - expressed through the medium of Moses:

 

Thou shalt have no other gods before me...

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation...

Exadus 20.3,5.

 

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and every green tree.

Deuteronomy 12.2

 

If thy brother, ...or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, nor thy fathers;

Thou shalt not consent... neither shalt thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him: thine hand shalt be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all people.

Deuteronomy 13. 6,8,9

 

So the Bible (and its close relative the Qu'ran) give scriptural sanction to intolerance making it a sacred duty to destroy others of different beliefs. This is the apotheosis of exclusivism: division of the world into believers and non-believers, with non-believers deserving death and damnation. With this background the violence-marred history of Christianity and Islam become entirely understandable. As the English historian Lord Acton observed regarding the Popes: "...[They] were not only murderers in the great style, but they made murder a legal basis of Christianity and the condition of salvation." (de Rosa, p. 249)

This is the inevitable consequence of an exclusivist doctrine though Acton seems not to have seen it; he attributed it to the character of the Popes rather than the character of the creed.

To sum up the difference: the pluralistic spiritual traditions of India and ancient Greece offer complete freedom of exploration to the seeker with no human intermediary - or his agents like the clergy - to bar the way. Secondly, religious doctrines carry no authority and there is also no enforcing agency like the clergy of Christianity and Islam. Exclusivist religions on the other hand deny direct access to God; in addition, the word of God - revealed only to an exclusive medium - carries the force of authority that is enforced by the clergy. These are the God-substitutes in Ram Swarup's picturesque phrase.

In addition, in Hinduism and Buddhism there is no concept of the original sin, but only of avidya or ignorance. A man is not born in sin but in ignorance. He is not redeemed by faith and repentance but by bodhi - or enlightenment. The word 'Buddha' which means the 'enlightened one' is derived from bodhi. The idea of passage from ignorance to light prevailed among the Gnostics also who rejected the notion of sin and redemption.[8]

Ultimately, the Hindu concept of godhead, like that of ancient Greece, represents a search for the meaning of the universe and of existence. In contrast, in the exclusivist creeds of Christianity and Islam, God is not invoked in search of answers to cosmic existential questions, but as the means through which to exercise authority. In the exclusivist tradition, God is not seen as a cosmic being: He is the source of authority which is always exercised by humans while invoking His name. Such creeds cannot survive when divested of authority, which is their sole support. Ram Swarup, who has probably made a deeper study of religions than anyone else living today puts it this way:[9]

 

In short, the two Revelations [of Christianity and Islam) reduced the concept of religion itself. Religion was no longer truth of the spirit; it became a hegemonic ideology, a creed to be imposed by jihad and salesmanship. Man's prayer took the form of a dogma, of beliefs, of articles of faith, which could be numbered, catechised, labelled and exported.

 

In other words, revelation is the result of applying the principle of reductionism to the world of mysticism and the spirit. Pagan gods are cosmic beings, while in exclusivist creeds He is the figure of authority. That is the fundamental difference.

As anyone can see, the pluralistic Hindu and Greek spiritual traditions stand at the pole opposite from the exclusivism of revealed creeds like Christianity and Islam. It is therefore a very great fallacy to talk of 'equality of religions' based on a superficial comparison of stray passages taken out of context. Pluralism not only permits freedom of choice and of conscience, it also denies exclusive doctrinal authority for anyone claim or claimant. The absolute and unquestioned authority for a single claimant - as seen for example in the Biblical passages quoted above - constitutes the essence of exclusivism. It is the single prop of authority for the creed; without this authority to uphold it an exclusivist creed collapses - and this is now the great threat posed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is the fate of every paurusheya religion - as perishable as its purusha.

Maintaining this authority also calls for an enforcing instrument called the clergy. Neither Christianity nor Islam can exist without clergy; they usually need also some form of government support, if not actually be in control of the government itself. The collapse of Christianity in the secular humanistic West, where it is no longer in control of the state apparatus bears testimony to this fact. The same will be the result in the Islamic world also if secularism ever takes hold.

The reason for this is not hard to seek. These two theocracies have been engaged mainly in secular activities while invoking God as authority. Once their hold over secular activities is removed, all they are left with is the empty invocation. As we saw in the last chapter, the 'Christian' West is no longer buying it. A theocracy cannol transform itself and exist as a spiritual entity when its enforcers are divorced from temporal power. Theocracy is power, or it is nothing This is one of the great lessons of history. It lies at the root of the collapse of Christianity in the West.

 

 

4. Constantine on Freedom of Worship

 

Universality of outlook is a feature not only of Hinduism and its offshoot of Buddhism, but of all pagan religions. And this is not merely theoretical. To see this point, it is helpful to look at the Edict of Milan signed in AD 326 between Emperor Constantine and his eastern rival Licinius:

 

We have long considered that freedom of worship should not be denied. Rather, each man's thoughts and desire should be granted him, enabling him to have regard for spiritual things as he himself may choose. This is why we have given orders that everyone should be allowed to have his own beliefs and worship as he wishes. (de Rosa p. 49)

 

This is a typically pagan view that should gladden the heart of any Hindu sage. Incidentally, it is incorrect to say that Constantine established Christianity as the state religion. He simply extended recognition to Christianity as another religion at the Council of Nicea in AD 325. He never ceased being a pagan or stopped using the title Pontifex Maximus as the head of Rome's pagan religion. His so-called conversion was simply acceptance of Christianity as another path - a typically pagan pluralistic way of looking at the world. The very fact that he signed the Edict of Milan the year after the Council of Nicea shows that he continued being a pluralist, regarding Christianity as simply another path. Christian propagandists have made much of it to buttress their claim over both religious and secular authority. This claim, however, rests on a forged document known as the 'Donation of Constantine'. (See Chapter 8.)

More interestingly, it is illuminating to contrast this breadth of vision shown in the Edict of Milan with the reaction of Pope Innocent X to the Peace of Westphalia thirteen centuries later. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia proclaimed: Citizens whose religion differs from that of their sovereign are to have equal rights with other citizens.' Pope Innocent X protested vehemently claiming that granting of religious tolerance was 'un-Christian, pernicious, insane and no different from atheism.' (de Rosa, ibid.)

Peter de Rosa makes the observation that no document in Church history is as tolerant, as generous or as wise as the Edict of Milan 'composed by two blood-thirsty warriors'. But of course, no mere kingly warrior like Constantine can ever hope to compete with religious warriors like the Popes in their appetite for blood.

I have found it worthwhile to devote some space to explaining these basic concepts of exclusivism and pluralism; without an understanding of the exclusivism that lies at the heart of Christianity (and Islam), and lies also at the bottom of the fear of enquiry which the Church has always displayed, one cannot truly understand its past history or its present crisis. If the Church can somehow drop its doctrinal exclusivity and become pluralistic, it may be able to weather the crisis brought on by the Dead Sea Scrolls. But a pluralistic Church is a contradiction of terms. It is for this reason - intolerance of pluralism and diversity - that intellectuals in the West have rejected Christianity.

Most Western liberals having known nothing but exclusivist creeds have unconsciously assumed religion to be at fault for their troubled history; they have no notion of any religion that is not also a theocracy. For this reason, liberal humanists in the West have been anti-religion rather than anti-exclusivist - for they know not the difference. They equate religion with scriptural authority enforced by an often tyrannical clergy. They would do well to study non-dogmatic Eastern religions, and study also their own ancient pagan traditions like those of Greece. They will then be able to recognize that the culprit and the cause of their terrible history is not religion, but an exclusivist doctrine thrust upon them by God-substitutes. This is what made intellectuals of the Age of Enlightenment like Voltaire and Jefferson look to Greece and reject revelatory claims.[10]

 

The authoritative source of exclusivism - of both Christianity and Islam - can be traced to the Bible. (The Qu'ran is little more than an idiosyncratic adaptation of the Bible in Arabic.) The seeds of this exclusivism - or 'Semitic exclusiveness' as it is often called - can therefore be traced to Judaism. Thus, to understand the evolution of Christian doctrine, and the history of the Church, we need briefly to review the history of Judaism in the centuries leading to the birth of Christianity. It is surprising but true that most Christians are unaware of the fact that Christianity was born in the cauldron of discontent that led to the First Jewish War. That is where we need to look - in the centuries leading to the First Jewish War - to understand the birth of Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls are very much a part of the same historical and social milieu.