Religious exclusivism is the belief by members of a particular religion or a group that only believers of their faith will see heaven, and other people who believe in other faiths will be condemned to hell. A more moderate view of the religious exclusivism doctrine states that believers of a particular religion will only attain salvation while non-believers will not achieve such a status (Peterson et al., 2014). In contrast, universalism holds the view that all people will eventually receive the blessings of God no matter their faith. While religious exclusivism may demonstrate higher dedication and belief in one faith, it may bread dangerous religious extremism that could justify evil or genocidal acts against people of other faiths.
Religious exclusivism manifests primarily in Abrahamic religions in various ways. For instance, in Hebrew, at the core of the concept of “the chosen one” is a belief that anyone who does not subscribe to the Jewish faith will not see the promised “world to come.” In Christianity, religious exclusivism manifests in various ways. The Catholic Church and other denominations, for instance, teach that only those who follow true faith will enter the Kingdom of heaven while non-adherents of the faith will go to hell (Peterson et al., 2014). Religious exclusivism is also apparent in Islam. Accordingly, the Islam faith, “the people of the book” described in the Quran as sincere Jews and Christians, will see paradise while people of other faiths and the ungodly Jews and Christians will have nothing to see Allah nor enter paradise.
Historically, kings, warriors, and heads of state have used religious exclusivism to justify acts of cruelty and war, bans against marriages, and persecution for people who do not profess the same faith as them. However, while religious exclusivism may lead to negative consequences, people can practice religious exclusivism today without causing harm or infringing on the rights of other people of different faiths. Additionally, all religions on the planet encourage some level of religious exclusivism where other religions are recognized as legitimate but not true religions. Religious exclusivism did not emerge with the emergence of religion but was a carrying over of the tribalism and clan system entrenched in traditional communities that viewed other tribes and clans as inferior, enemies, or less human. In the traditional sense, the clan members that killed rival clan members could justify their acts by claiming they killed their enemies. Until recently, religious killings of people from different religions could be justified. Despite the most extreme form of religious exclusivism dissipating, the implicit contempt of other religions remains today.
One of the most apparent problems with religious exclusivism is the ignorance of other people’s religions and beliefs. People of exclusive faith show no interest in learning or understanding different faiths. For many, their God is the only true God, and anyone who practices another religion is doomed to hell if they do not convert. Today, many Christians would find it improper to study Islam, while many Muslims would also find it inappropriate to study Christianity. The mutual disdain for each other’s religion leads to mistrust and the proliferation of stereotypes that divide people along religious lines. This status quo has informed public policy, foreign policy, and general national and international relations between nations. On the interpersonal level, religious indifference resulting from ignorance of other people’s religion has negative consequences. Such negative consequences include but are not limited to bans on inter-faith marriages and relationships.
Religious exclusivism has robbed people of their humanism and replaced it with rules. People with exclusivist views on religion tend to worry more about what the law is than about the welfare of their neighbors. In the religious sense, a neighbor is anyone in need, no matter their religious inclination. The legal perspective on sin sees sin as an offense towards God, and the humanistic perspective sees sin as being harmful to other people. In actuality, the human and legal perspectives are not that different because disobeying God in any way is similar to disobeying one’s parents. Thus, the harmful actions of religiously exclusive people towards people who do not subscribe to their religion offend God as much as any other sin would offend Him. The scriptures talk about God creating human beings and not God creating people of one faith. Thus, as God’s creations, all human beings deserve to be treated as people first because other titles are secondary.
According to John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis, the world is religiously ambiguous. Accordingly, one can experience it whether or not they believe in any religion because there is no compelling proof that one faith is greater than the other (Peterson et al., 2014). Additionally, being atheistic or theistic does not matter because, according to John Hick, no one is greater than the other. In Hick’s pluralistic world, everyone has a right to worship and believe in any religion or not by following their conscience. The world described by John Hick is entirely possible. Notwithstanding the relative religious tolerance experienced today, religious supremacy has seen the slaughter of millions of people throughout history. At some point in history, the religious authority to influence the faithful was delegated to political leaders who ruthlessly imposed religious beliefs on unwilling people. In John Hick’s pluralistic world, there would be no need to coerce people to believe in any religion.
Religious pluralism respects everyone with or without religious beliefs and believes there is value in every religion. Religious extremism rises from the view that people of a different religion undervalue or encroach on another religion. On various occasions, violent incidents have occurred because people felt their religion was not given the respect it deserves. In a pluralistic world envisioned by John Hick, religion is not at the center stage of people’s interaction with one another. Therefore, it cannot breed misunderstandings, disrespect, or even conflict. In essence, the religious stratification currently in place would have no place in a pluralistic world, avoiding the harmful conversation of “us” versus them. Without the burden of religion, people could start seeing each other as humans first and not a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion leading to true humanity.
In the most extreme cases, religious exclusivity envisions the going to hell of people who do not subscribe to a particular religion, while more moderate religious exclusionists believe the non-believer will not receive salvation and hence the heavenly blessings. These radical views have caused conflict throughout history, but people have largely learned to live peacefully with those they religiously disagree with a few exemptions. One possible solution to the consequences of religious exclusivity proposed by John Hicks is religious pluralism, where the faithful and non-faithful respect and value each other first as humans being.