The plausibility of peaceful coexistence between religions where they view the other religions as heretical

Question

So this is for the same story as my "Boats for tall people" question earlier, but not about boats. In this world there is one religion that almost every race has a different interpretation of.

For example: The really tall people of my last question, the Cellene, believe that the islands are different gods who are the children of the mother god, the ocean.

They believe that it is their job to care for these islands to the point they give up things, like more expensive food and they live in houses made from the branches of trees.

Well the Meyra, another race, believe that the islands are the sinful parts of pure mother ocean along with other Meyra who pure mother ocean believed so foul that they were cast from her embrace.

Now all religions are based on the idea of an ocean goddess who created the islands, each religion has a different interpretation of what the islands represent. They also believe that the religion of the other races is very heretical and is not to be tolerated at all. Would it be possible for them to find a way for the majority of people to peacefully coexist?

Answer 1

Now all religions are based on the idea of an ocean goddess who created the islands, each religion has a different interpretation of what the islands represent. They also believe that the religion of the other races is very heretical and is not to be tolerated at all. Would it be possible for them to find a way for the majority of people to peacefully coexist?

You probably can't fix this long-term

You explicitly deny that they should tolerate the others' existence at all, which kneecaps the majority of the answers being upvoted.

Religiously, you could get angry begrudging coexistence by

• Believing the other race is specially protected and marked by the divine (à la Cain). They're a stain and a mistake, but they have a role in Creation and are to be left alone.
• Believing the other race is specially punished for their sins in earlier lives (à la the Dharmic faiths). Their estrangement from the true faith is part of their fallen existence, but should be mostly accepted. The good ones will eventually be reborn as the Chosen Race like we were.
• Believing the other race is going to be specially punished and this is all part of the Divine Plan (à la Calvin). The damnèd other exists only to better guide the Righteous, who continue upon their path knowing that vengeance for their many blasphemies is the Lord's.
• Believing we've moved past those silly superstitions of the by-gone age (à la the Enlightenment) and there's no reason to think our silly, obviously made-up legends are a reason to kill them because of their even sillier, obviously idiotic legends.

Thing is, that's still toleration. Unless you want to reformulate your request, the only possible answer is

There's an uneasy stalemate

They both know the other is a blasphemous monstrosity anathema to the Great Aqueous Mother. Some ideas for how this could shake out:

• They just finished a major war and everyone's exhausted at the moment (cf. almost any period of peace in human history). The leaders will overlook fairly major provocations just because they don't want to get that ball rolling for a while.
• One side already won the war and maintains such a level of superiority that the other has to acknowledge their power, while biding their time and gathering their forces. The Chinese legends about Goujian and his revenge upon Fuchai and the kingdom of Wu would fit this if you like the underdog; the Pax Romana if you like the victor.
• Both sides have some hugely destructive threat, such that you've got a threat of mutually assured destruction (à la the Cold War). Hard to imagine what this could be in something as vast as the ocean but, e.g., maybe the fish stocks around the island are the major source of food for both groups but easily destroyed if either side is threatened with extinction.
• There's a bigger threat from some third group and they're currently forced to pool their resources (or at least refrain from hostilities) to defend themselves (à the Greeks).
• Both sides already lost and are being controlled by some third group, who plays them off each other but prohibits most open violence between them (à la the British Raj).
• They just don't interact much. The majority of either group is at peace because one lives on the islands and the other lives in the sea. Any time they meet each other, there's the possibility of homicidal rage (à la Oedipus at the crossroads) but it just doesn't happen all that much and they mostly stay out of each other's way, until... [whatever your story is]

Answer 2

One does not have to approve of all of an individual's actions to tolerate the individual.

For example, I might find your politics revolting, and feel physical disgust at the food items you choose to put in your mouth. Your music makes my teeth hurt. But - you are pretty easy going, your personal hygiene is an inspiration to me and when you and I have work to do I can count on you to pull your own weight and make us some money. When there is work, we get along fine. I will just look away when you eat and answer with natural history facts if you try to talk politics.

So too your races: the items they disagree upon do not preclude tolerance of individuals and populations of the other kind.

Answer 3

You might look at how religions interacted in more enlightened periods of our own history - a fair example of this is the way members of other religions lived under Muslim rule in Al Andalus ( among other parts of the world ) where both Christians and Jews were tolerated and accepted, they were allowed to worship and to lead their own lives, but they did have to pay extra taxes.

Over time a lot of people converted for tax reasons, but those who didn't were welcome to continue paying extra to live in their own traditions.

Most people aren't driven by religious fanaticism, and maybe even those that are can be bought off to a degree if the heretic's taxes are paying for them to have magnificent temples...

Answer 4

Their religions could ban proselytism: people need to discover the real truth by themselves and trying to force conversion (peacefully or by violence) is a sin.

With that, none of your races can kill the other for religious purposes because the heretics aren't evil, just ignorant.

Answer 5

You do not want Heaven to get cramped.

This is another take against proselitism: Those who chose the wrong religion will burn in hell anyway.

So we the true believers should not get distracted from adorating our (true) god just to save some heretic's soul; it is their loss!

It probably works better with a weak clergy (part time, has to sustain themselves). Because the moment you get people whose way of life depends of being a preacher, it takes very little for (at least some of) them to realize that the more "true believers" there are, the more money for them¹

Predestination might be useful: those who are unbelievers are so because god did choose them to burn in Hell, so there is no sense in trying to save them.

---

¹Sorry, I did mean "donations to show god their people's faith".

Answer 6

Would it be possible for them to find a way for the majority of people to peacefully coexist?

Laïcité is what we tried to use in modern western world.

Laïcité ([la.i.si.te]), literally "secularity", is a French concept of secularism. It discourages religious involvement in government affairs, especially religious influence in the determination of state policies; it also forbids government involvement in religious affairs, and especially prohibits government influence in the determination of religion.

In its strict and official acceptance, it is the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state.

Answer 7

Redefine Peace

Others have mentioned a bunch of ways to hold the 2 sides in check, some of which are nonreligious and/or involve a 3rd group. However, in the long run having the two coexist peacefully in close proximity is extremely difficult. If the 2 races are human-like in behaviour then there will be an extremist fringe who will attempt to purge the heretic(usually in violent ways), preachers who encourage said extremists, unscrupulous statesmen who make use of fanatic sentiment to score points, and so on. Over time they become more and more difficult to hold in check. Without a change in views on religious doctrine the issue will inevitably end up poisoning relations between both groups. Imagine how the Meyra will feel when their town crier tells them that a Cellene nutjob broke into a Meyra family's house and murdered all of them before setting himself on fire when law enforcement arrived. Incidents like that cannot be stopped indefinitely.

Therefore you can simply redefine 'peace' as a cold war instead. The leadership of both sides as well as the majority of the public don't hate the other side enough to go to war without the other side doing something provocative first. This makes it imperative for the leaders to keep the extremists from doing something that will give the other side a valid casus belli. Tense coexistence should give plenty of opportunities for political as well as literal knifefighting.

Answer 8

1. Balance of terror
Both religions are so powerful that an attack on the other religion would be so devastating on both participants and the outcome so unpredictable that both religions refrain from attacking. The situation is even more troublesome if a powerful third party exists who would use the situation to its own advantage.

Counterexample how not to do it: The situation of the Council of Nicaea. Christianity split into Roman Catholic, the Arians and Nestorians leading to much infighting. While the beginning of the Dark Ages has many other contributing factors, the struggle for power and the internal schism which culminated later in the Great Schism has a definite part that Christianity was much less powerful and the islamic Umayyad Caliphate raised to unprecented power.

2. The other party is just...a little bit misguided
This is the position of Islam who claims that the "People of the Book", Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are on the right path, but have been entangled in the bushes. So they do not force conversion, but still strive to be the major power and relegate the other religions to observers. The tolerance ends for all other religions: polytheists, atheists and, worse, apostates.

3. Build an interpretation layer between believers and the scripture
If you let read people a holy scripture for themselves they could come to unfortunate conclusions, e.g. that differences between religions must be defended by a holy war. So the very best you can do to avoid this is to guarantee that there is "right" interpretation which coincidentally is in accord which suits the leaders.

• Be sure that the scripture is written in an obscure, hard to read language. Avoid translations like the pest and claim that the translation is always wrong, only the language by God/prophet/priets is an acceptable choice.

• Now you need old, wise men. Those have an impeccable moral record, they have never ever stolen or even told the untruth in their entire life, they were literally born perfect. Those are educated in rhetoric and argumentation so they can perfectly argue that 2+2= 5...erm...4. You must also deny the population to ever get knowledge to argue for themselves, it is dangerous stuff, the mind may explode. So to prevent that someone to ever read, or beware, even interpret the scripture for themselves, always refer to the old,wise man around the corner. This one has studied the scripture for a lifetime, so his interpretation is always correct.

• You now also need to handle those unbelievers who might take a look at those scriptures and whom you cannot ostracize. So the old, wise men and their material must tirelessly assure that those unbelievers are a bunch of complete idiots, totally uncapable of independent thought. You cannot trust them one bit.

4. Religion is (currently) less important than other factors.
Often religious subgroups who would be persecuted otherwise fill a niche which allows their continued existence. Jews were able to get into the moneylending business because demanding interest was frowned upon/outlawed for Christians and other occupations like craftsman were forbidden due to guild laws. The Parsi, a small religious group of Zoroastrians in India gained enormous influence as contact persons for the British Empire.

So you can made a subgroup invaluable because they can do things other religions may not because of prohibition. That does not mean that sometimes persecution set in, like the Jewish Pogroms during the Middle Ages.

Answer 9

Introduce a more heretical sect

Over time, many denominations of a religion can branch out and evolve independently. We could consider the many denominations of Christianity for an example. Time isn't the only factor, but depending on how old your religions are, it may stand to reason your religions already have a spectrum of religious voices / interpretations.

From the sound of it, your two religions share some core beliefs. However, if you were to introduce a third sect that both deemed as more heretical, a peace may well be the state of natural equilibrium -- if not an alliance.

For real life evidence, consider Shia (including Kurds) and Sunni Muslims in Iraq following the rise of ISIS. Here the most heretical sect was ISIS, which was denounced heavily by many prominent Shia and Sunni clerics. While some Sunni Iraqis identified with ISIS more than the corrupt Shia government, still, in other parts of the country, the case may also be made that cooperation between the sects improved. The premise being that the immediate threat of losing Iraqi territory to ISIS trumped the "heresy" of the rival sect.

Answer 10

In this answer, I would like to list some anthropological and psychological factors that influence how peaceful people of different religions can coexist.

There are objective needs that must be met in order to survive and thrive. There are also cultural assumptions of how (and how certain) these needs will be met. These assumptions are formed by environment and religion. A worldview of abundance and love for all will be better at promoting peace than a view of scarcity and entitlement.

Imitation

People tend to imitate their god. Gods lead by example.

Well the Meyra, another race, believe that the islands are sinful parts of pure mother ocean along with other Meyra who pure mother ocean believed so foul that they were cast from her embrace.

If their god casts out foul people, they will do the same. If their god throws away whole islands and the people on them, they will leave their trash there and treat the people like trash. On the other hand, if their god cares for the islands and the poeple, they will care for them, too.

Scarcity or Abundance

How do the people view their world? Is it a world of scarcity, or of abundance? Are those islands able to regenerate in a short time? What does their religion teach? Does their god provide for all, the hard-working and the lazy, the good and the bad, the true believers and the heathens? Or are the true believers entitled to take the scarce resources from the heathens, by war, robbery, or additional taxes and duties?

Omnipotence or Symbiosis

If there are many gods, your god might depend on your help for his own well-being, or to defend against other gods. You will never fully understand why he needs these sacrifices, but they are essential. Otherwise, he might not be able to bless and protect you. A symbiotic god is affected by scarcity himself. He needs you to provide for him. And to fight for him, against the unbelievers.

An omnipotent (or at least very potent) god can provide for you in abundance, and he can fight for himself. The unbelievers do not bother him. He will either convert or extinguish them, as he pleases, whenever he wants. It's not your job to fight them.

An omnipotent god might even command you to love your enemies and their islands (if he loves them and provides for them, too).

Rationalization

Man tends to emphasize the features of a religion that suit his needs and plans, and forget about the others--either willfully or by rationalization. This is a factor against peace. Your species might be different.

E.g., the Cellene live on the islands, and they get wood, food and lots of other stuff from the islands. When another people arrives and cuts the woods, hunts the game, and leaves a lot of waste, what will the Cellene do? They will defend their islands.

They might rationalize that it is their divine duty:

The Cellene believe that it is there job to care for these islands to the point they give up stuff from themselves

And they will always quote this noble reason. But they'd fight anyway, to protect their own livelihood and property. They might even start a war, to protect the other poeple's islands.

A god might be more explicit in what he deems good or bad. Or even intervene and remind his people of his commandments.

---

Ideas and Sources

Edward T. Hall postulates that all areas of a culture are connected to each other. There is a map of culture as a tool for anthropologists (and worldbuilders) at the end of his book "The Silent Language".

Kate McCord shows how culture is influenced by religion. In "In the Land of Blue Burqas", she relates how, by meeting a foreign culture and religion, she has learned as much about her own.

Answer 11

Real world experience shows that religions have a strong trend towards either being violent themselves or inciting violence. The force that keeps them in check in the real world is the Enlightenment and its humanistic values. Interestingly, peace is a humanistic, but not a religious value.

So if your religions are embedded in a larger framework that members of all religions agree upon, then you can plausibly have them strife peacefully. If religion is the "top dog" in the value system, the simple fact that you know the truth of the world and your neighbour doesn't gives all kinds of justifications for all kinds of behaviour, and at least some people will use violent means.

This is a major piece of history building for your world, as we are not even there in the real world.

One more note: The fact that your religions are similar and consider each other heretics instead of just unbelievers is potentially a source for more rather than less violence. People who believe in the wrong gods can potentially be tolerated - ancient Rome had a religious system based on assimilation that worked pretty well, except with Christians who by dogma refused to simply add their god to the official pantheon. But people who believe in the same gods in the wrong way are a potential threat to the religion itself, because they endanger its monopoly of truth.

Answer 12

Have you considered the possibility of a caste system?

In this scenario the different races would follow their own religion and would have very specific places within the broader society. Their settlements on the different islands would help keep the castes separate, and they would definitely be discouraged from intermarrying or mixing religions. They would be allowed to mix for specific reasons (e.g. business) but it would not be common for people to marry or even have close friends from other castes. Individuals would be born into their castes and would remain in these groups for the majority of their lives. In this way the religions can be completely intolerant of each other but would be able to work together when necessary for the functioning of society.

Answer 13

Omnism

All gods are an expression of the same supernatural beings, and while specific teachings and traditions may differ greatly, the underlying supernatural realities of afterlives, vague absolute morality, and possibly creation myths. This is Omnism, a term describing those who note the commonalities of religions across the world, and decide that the similarities between them must point to a broader truth, even if the specifics get mixed up by we fallible beings.

There are probably many religions in this world - as people spread, schisms occur, new gospels are "revealed" to one or another, different traditions lead to new gods, and churches change their doctrine to fit various political necessities.

Omnism is first latched onto by those who might describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious" - looking for a non-dogmatic form of religion. There's no official churches, but only the hardcore literalists reject them as heretics - everyone else sees them as largely harmless, if misguided and naive. Over time, as religions drift further apart, more and more "moderates" side with Omnism, until straight-up religion is only held by the strongly traditional.

The Cellene and Myera specifically

Omnists are also exceedingly good at coming up with compromises. For the island example, they might point to some translation of original texts (or in the case of oral history, an ambiguity of wording) that could be viewed in a less harsh light, and therefore perhaps the islands are not sinful, as the Meyra believe, but actually sacred, and the punishment for setting foot on them is because of despoiling paradise. This changes their attitude towards the Cellene from "hateful" to "compassionate", and they can work together to try to come up with some compromise - such as the Cellene visiting the island fewer and fewer times, until the natural divine order tends to it. But they both agree to keep others away from the island.

It doesn't guarantee total peace, it doesn't remove dogmatic literalists, it doesn't remove all the features of religion that lead it to be used for holy violence; but it does give you a roadmap towards religious peace.

Answer 14

What if the high priests are part of a secret society, with a secret doctrine of universal trancendence of religions? The conflict would be exoterical only, because the leadership would be esoterically linked and could use it's influence to control the zealots.

Answer 15

Faith is something personal. Each person has to educate his own faith following the old-book and the kinda-new-book-but-still-pretty-old-book.

In both religion their is a clear statement:

"Heretic" are like brother. From an other father or mother. Even if they don't know who's is real parent are. Even if they call someone else father because they have been educated by him. They stay your brother and sister. Every man are made from the same mud.

This is enought to rules out every religious violence. Don't do to an other man whats you won't do to your own brother.

The other point is more blurry and is about proselitis .The closest translation I came up with is:

The faith of someone, is it's own. And no one can pretend to someone else virtue.

The interpretation of this is pretty clear, We are all born sinner. And converting an heretic is no gain for your faith balance. It doesn't clear you from your sin. Or give you bonus point.

Answer 16

Heresy is a wonderful thing, like any other family feud it's worst close to its origin and after that it's mostly just kept going for something to do on a Sunday.

This comes down to how religious or enlightened your people are. For something so fundamentally different each covering large parts of the population and each considering the other to be heretical the actual heresy must have occurred some centuries earlier and be lost in the mists of time.

• If your people are still highly superstitious, especially as ancient mariner types where the odds of coming back alive aren't exactly great, then this is going to be an important factor and nobody will sail with a member of the wrong religion on board.

• If they're more technologically advanced and live less at the mercy of wind and waves then perhaps parents would frown on marrying someone from the wrong church, but otherwise they're fundamentally the same religion.

Remember that heresy is abandoning the one true religion. The fact the religions have some common elements doesn't make one heretical to the other, from your description it sounds like they're infidels which is another game entirely, they never were part of the same core religion.

This allows them to live entirely in peace as long as they obey the "rules for others" of whichever group is dominant in the region. Those rules are often arbitrary and somewhat oppressive, but also come with certain freedoms including the freedom to be different because they can only apply civil, not religious laws.