There are at least two types of exclusivist totalitarian countries: those which claim to be one nation under a Party, and those which claim to be one nation under a God. The former countries suffer from aggrandizemental political-party-related, the latter from aggrandizemental theocentrist, or monotheist, exclusivism. Political-party-related exism is a manifestation of politico-ideological exclusivism; theocentrist exism is a primacy-related manifestation of denominational exclusivism, and monotheist exism a principalship-related manifestation of it. Altho denominational exclusivism is not worse, nor better, than politico-ideological exclusivism, it deserves extra attention here, because our own doctrine, the DNI, is a denominational, and not a political, one.

In theory principle-related manifestations of denominationalism must be distinguished from primacy- and principalship-related ones --as discussed in 2.5.2--, but in practise these different manifestations usually coincide and when we thus speak of "religionism" in these sections, one may often read "theocentrist", "theodemonism-related" or "(mono)theist exclusivism" instead. As already mentioned in the second chapter of this book, religionism itself refers both to religion-based and religious (person-centered) exism. The reprobates of the former brand of religionism are people with a different religion than the one aggrandized by the person or government discriminating, whereas those of the latter brand of religionism are people who adhere to no religion.

Religion always has been and, where not extinct, still is the cause of serious conflicts which could easily lead, or actually lead or have led, to bloody civil and international wars. People of different religious denominations used to kill, or are still killing, one another ruthlessly, while 'justifying' their deeds by referring to their god(s) and/or to their adversaries' demon(s). In actual fact god has, then, for them the pragmatic meaning of the leader(s) of our community of believers. It is such a god who sanctions all eruptions of violence against the ideological enemy, and it is such a god who is believed to bring eventual victory to their own side. Nowhere seem doctrines more exclusivist and extremist than during religious or theodemonical warfare, altho certain nonreligious, political ideologies may follow their abominable examples but too faithfully.

Those living in countries which are not directly involved in religious, civil or international wars do not seldom look upon the warring parties as uncivilized societies or communities. If 'civilization' means a high degree of social and cultural inclusivity, it may be true that such parties are indeed little civilized so far as this aspect is concerned. But rather than exclusively pointing at the lack of inclusivity among those who are involved in religious warfare, we should be prepared to take a closer look at so-called 'civilized' societies or communities where religion did, or still does, play a dominant role without being the immediate cause of bloody conflicts.

The parts of the world which are presently not involved (anymore) in a religious war or conflict have known a long period of religious quarrels and expressions of intolerance too between people of different, religious beliefs. But this period came to a close --so it seems-- when the ideal of religious liberty and tolerance was introduced by public figures who were progressive for their time. These reformers foresaw that freedom of religion would not only end the official discrimination of those who adhered to another religion than the established one, but that it would also create an ambience of tolerance which was to stimulate the will to cooperate in all fields. Enthusiastic supporters of the ideal of freedom saw a pluralistic society emerging in which all citizens, whatever their persuasion, would live together in peace forever.

To prevent friction between the religions many countries did not recognize by law any denominational doctrine as the official state religion any longer. Supporters of religious liberty said that all believers actually worshiped one and the same god, and that in this spirit they should together build the future of their nation. Tho in many of these countries political parties were often founded on a particular creed, parties with different kinds of religious backgrounds were thereafter accepted. In other countries, or divisions of countries, where political parties were not explicitly associated with one particular religion, democratically elected presidents or premiers scrupulously tried to have a representative of 'every' religion in their governments, that is, every religion which somehow belonged to the denominational paradigm of the time and place. A seven-league wave of self-satisfaction would sweep a land when it turned out tolerant enough to elect a president who belonged to a different religion than chiefs of state ought to belong to in foregoing times. Altho so-called 'national' anthems usually continued to invoke Mono, any reference to a particular creed the citizens were expected to adhere to was deleted from then on. The old political system in which this creed used to have the status of a state-religion became henceforth a seemingly impartial symbol of stability and national unity.

Grants for denominational organizations and spiritual radio and television programs were proportionally divided over the different temple societies or religious denominations. Books, films and plays were censored by a board that represented or made believe to represent 'the people', holding back every work which might offend the feelings of some citizens, whatever religion they adhered to. (The narrow-minded and inhibitionist feelings of the most religious among them were called "those of the general public" or "population".)

With the introduction of religious liberty it was no longer automatically the state's 'true faith' which could wield power over all other beliefs. In democratic polities power had now formally become a purely numerical matter: the more souls a religious community counted, the more votes it could cast. By producing a large offspring, the members of each religious community were thus able to contribute to the spread of their religion in a very concrete way without having to be accused of a thirst for disproportional political influence.

In a society which attained a level of technology sophisticated enough to commence visits to the moon or other celestial bodies, it became extraordinarily spectacular for a man to say his lordly prayers from a real spaceship and to have his divine words heard from high in the sky all over 'Mono's own country' (the country possessed by his own community of theodemonist believers). Everyone sensitive to supernatural lights had to be profoundly touched by such a wonderful and heavenly spectacle of piety programmed at such an extremely high level. (In a country possessed by atheist materialists astronauts assured people back home that they had not seen and did not see any god in space. But in comparison with the theist happening this nondiscovery was not half as exciting.)

Since most citizens preached and practised religious tolerance, there was believed to be no injustice in the sphere of people's denominational beliefs anymore. The adherents of supernaturalist, theodemonist ideologies were living in peace -- at least, that is what they believed they were.

Those who introduced religious liberty and equality were, perhaps, 'progressive' in a sense, but if so, then only within their own frame, namely religion. Because the denominational doctrines of the past were religious ideologies in the majority of cases, the concept of religion was treated as synonymous to the concept of denominationalism (or of 'morality' or of 'philosophy of life'). This was also what the supporters of religious liberty, and even supporters of liberty in general, had had in mind: all who recognized a system of norms and values should be united in the belief in one (and supposedly the same) god. They excluded the religions which were not monotheistic, and they excluded all normative doctrines which were not religious. Such doctrines were treated as wicked or awkward aberrations which did not fit in with the whole.

In later times the number of people in religion-dominated countries who could not, or hardly, be considered religious anymore, started to grow (again). From the point of view of religion most of them lacked any serious outlook on life, because they were not interested in spiritual affairs, something imputed to the level of prosperity attained and to the increase of materialism. A few of these nonreligious people started calling themselves "agnostics", saying that they did not or could not know whether gods (or 'God') existed. Logically speaking, not the atheists who said that gods (and demons) did not exist but these agnostics were the real unbelievers. (Ordinary language users often fail to distinguish between the absence of the belief that a certain entity exists and the belief that it does not exist.) Agnosticism, however, never took root as a denominational alternative, which is not surprizing because a doctrine centered round what one does not know just cannot be expected to strike the right note; it cannot be expected to strike any note. As a lack of persuasion does neither radiate vigor nor conviction no difficulties arose with these agnostics.

Those who made up the offscourings of theodemonist society in the denominational sphere were the atheists who bluntly declared that there did (and does) not exist any god. It may be logically incorrect, but they were seen as the 'real' unbelievers. In some countries atheists were disqualified as witnesses and as members of parliament. Traditional (theist) dictionaries described them as "godless" --which is correct-- and "immorally living". The double meaning of godless reflected the common, theodemonical belief that nonreligious people would be wicked. Principled atheists usually came from so-called 'good' families, and were fortunately regarded as merely having gone astray. Because of the significance attached to the institution of the family, for many atheists and persons not interested in religion, the religiosity of their family (especially of their parents or spouse) was the most important of the extenuating circumstances in their case. Since atheists were nonreligious, no supporter of religious liberty had to take them into account. They were believed to have no values at all, for they did not recognize a divine authority -- a mysterious kind of reasoning indeed, because principled atheists did not and do not recognize such an authority precisely because of the values they have. However, since atheists made up such a little minority in the beginning, no difficulties arose.

The nonreligious people without any definite world-view made up the bulk of those who stood outside the supernatural, theodemonical system. Basically these people were little or not interested in spiritual matters as dealt with in their times, and therefore they did not have, or were not able to express, any particular wishes or suggestions for improvement in this field, let alone that they could show any strength. Altho they made up a large group, no difficulties arose with them either. Even in a time of continued secularization, theodemonist societies were living in apparent peace after those in power had started preaching religious tolerance. On the whole the old, religious paradigm remained in force anyhow.