To discriminate against us because of, or with respect to, our convictions is to discriminate against us as persons, not just as bodies like in the case of racism and sexism. To discriminate against us because of, or with respect to, our denominational convictions, or the comprehensive ideology we adhere to, is the most far-reaching form of discriminating against us, since it is in our inclusive doctrine itself that all antidiscriminatory conceptions have coalesced to form a single, central belief. Hence, when we are or were discriminated against with respect to our denominational convictions, we are or would be indirectly subjected to any form of discrimination embraced or acquiesced in by the religious or political ideology drawn on by the discriminator. Discrimination because of our neutral-inclusive doctrine, or one of its inherent qualities, is not only wicked a single time directly, it is, in addition, wicked a great number of times indirectly. Such cannot be said of any other form of discrimination.

The discrimination of adherents of the DNI, or of others, does not have to consist of intentional acts like deliberate physical invasions, it may simply consist of ignorance or neglect. Thus people who claim that they are against discrimination often discriminate when they start to tell what they are against. They may mention "discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion" without realizing that human beings do and need not have a religion in the way they necessarily have a skin color and a national or ethnic origin. What is at issue in nonreligionist terms is, first of all, whether a person adheres to a denominational doctrine at all. Denominational inclusivity is then the freedom and equality of all people, whether they adhere to a denominational doctrine or not; and if so, whether that doctrine is a religion or not; and if so, whatever that religion might be; and if not so, whatever that nonreligious denominational doctrine might be. The religious liberty which excludes nonreligious denominational doctrines or ways of life will therefore have to be substituted by an inclusive ideological liberty and equality which comprises both supernaturalist and non-supernaturalist ideologies, both theodemonist and non-theodemonist ideologies (assuming, of course, that there still are people who believe in the supernatural and/or the theodemonical). In many countries no blood has been shed anymore between the followers of different religious creeds since the introduction of religious liberty. Religion-based discrimination and possible conflicts have been replaced there by impartiality towards all religious denominations. But not until the introduction of denominational or ideological inclusivity will discrimination and potential new conflicts between incompatible, comprehensive or specialist, ideologies be replaced by impartiality towards all people.

The concept of ideological liberty and equality must be as broad in orientation as feasible, and inadmissible generalizations must be refrained from. It is common knowledge that some ideologies (religious or nonreligious) have been, or still are, viewed as products from foreign soil which would endanger national security according to some people. This fact that a doctrine originated on foreign soil can be used as a pretext to outlaw that doctrine or to bring it into disrepute, even when the established religion or political ideology itself originated in another country or even in another continent. Sometimes the followers of certain religious or nonreligious ideologies have indeed shown exclusive loyalty to a foreign nation, but to automatically consider all followers of such an ideology unreliable is a generalization which is only meant to conceal or rationalize an exclusivist attitude. What should be cause for political concern in the first place is religions or other ideologies with a fuehrer at the top of an undemocratic, hierarchical organization who is at once a foreign head of state. When such a person is a man who is the head of state of the, or one of the, most religionist and sexist countries in the world, and also claims to be infallible, there is indeed every reason to suspect that those people who swear allegiance to (the duce of) such a totalitarian system will or can be disloyal to a nonsexist, democratic state which does not discriminate its citizens on the basis of their denominational or other ideological convictions.

Where people of different religions (or interpretations of one religion) massacre one another, it is the authoritarian, antiveridical, exclusivist or extremist foundation of their outlook on life which is the source of this evil. But also the relations between those who adhere to a religious ideology and those who adhere to a nonreligious one can be subject to the same forms of misery so long as at least one of those ideologies is authoritarian, antiveridical, exclusivistic and/or extremist. It is in such environments that people with a different denominational persuasion are ignored, maltreated or excluded altogether from the common framework. In traditional societies the intolerance and prejudicialness can, then, even strike the denominations which are most closely related to the official or dominant one, for it can be those very doctrines which most markedly expose the adherents of the paradigmatic ideology to an alternative manner of living and thinking which challenges their conscious or unconscious doubt about their own manner of living and denominational thinking. It is also here the alienation from particular groups, in this case based upon a certain denominational doctrine or ideology, which makes these groups unknown and therefore liable to be disliked. Except that such alienation and the concomitant injustice and possibly violence is caused by an exclusivist attitude of those who exclude, it is often also caused by the exclusivist belief of those excluded themselves, for example, when they claim in any way that they belong to a chosen class with a special political task, or --worse-- that they are 'the elect' of the supreme being 'Himself'.

A state in which laws, institutions, censorship, and so on, are based on judgments derived from religious books and the doctrines of religious organizations flouts denominational inclusivity. Altho reference to those books and organizations is often suffused with a color of legal and moral validity in such a society, every state law which is founded in one or more religious tenets is, morally speaking, an offense or crime. That is, such a law is an offense if the state regards a religious document or statement as a reason in itself to proscribe or prescribe something. No parliament, government or other state organ has the moral right to make binding judgments for a whole territory on the basis of the doctrinal tenets of an ideology which does not represent all citizens of this territory, let alone on the basis of an ideology which exhibits a sustained belief in phenomena for which the interindividual irreliability is symptomatic. Moreover, no person has a moral obligation to obey a state constitution, law or regulation which opens or closes with monotheist verbalism, or which is otherwise infected with the symbols of theodemonism or religion, if 'e does not adhere to a theodemonist or religious ideology. Such a state constitution, such a law or such an official regulation is addressed to monotheists, theodemonists or religous people exclusively. (Similarly, no person has a moral obligation to obey a state constitution, law or regulation which opens or closes with party-political verbalism, or which is otherwise infected with the symbols of a party-political doctrine, if 'e does not adhere to that political ideology. Such a state constitution, such a law or such an official regulation is addressed to party-members and sympathizers only.) Any obedience to such a constitution, law or regulation is, if not brutally enforced by the theodemonical or religious (or political) followers in question, at the most of a strictly prudential, utilitarian nature.

The right to personhood and the norm of inclusivity cover countless other fields than those of denominational inclusivity in a political or legal context. Yet, it is in these fields that we have to fight for our political freedom of speech and organization, for our right to be spared the false or extremely implausible beliefs and the exclusivist emblems of others, and for our legal and de facto recognition by the state as equals. Only under these conditions can we adhere to the DNI as equals and can we freely build on the ideals of neutral-inclusivity and veridical truth. A state or governmental agency that attempts to further theodemonism and supernaturalism is not only inimical to these ideals, it offends against them and violates our personal rights, for we have never agreed and will never agree to a state of that sort.

Like party-political exclusivism, religionism is a shortsighted strategy too as its perpetuation is once bound to backfire. Theodemonical religionism will, if not abandoned, more and more antagonize the adherents of modern secularism into themselves discriminating, if not fighting, against all religious beliefs and practises, whether religionistic or not. This will eventually be fatal for the traditional religion or religions in question when a new, nonreligious doctrine, which was in religionist times espoused by perhaps only a few, does become the new denominational paradigm after having been gaining ground rapidly. Should the discrimination of the adherents of the new paradigm not have ended long before that moment, it will be too late for the adherents of the old religion to sincerely declare themselves in favor of denominational inclusivity or equality. Then, it will be too late for them to sincerely claim that the state ought not to represent and propagate any form of denominationalism in particular. This is especially important to keep in mind when the new paradigm will not only be a present- and/or future-regarding, but also a past-regarding, normative doctrine.

Where state religionism continues to exist nevertheless, the open or concealed penetration of state affairs by religion can find expression in the wording of so-called 'national' anthems, the so-called 'national' celebration of religious feast-days, the system the head of state is incorporated into, the formation of political parties or the representation of religious sects in governments, the official tasks of the armed forces, and so on and so forth. In religionist countries non-theodemonists are expected to show respect for supernaturalist or theist anthems; the rejoicing at exclusivist expressions of praise or worship is thrusted upon people who want to be freed from them; citizens or immigrants who want to become a citizen are required to swear for a representative of the still-existing or former state religion; nonbelievers are politically treated as nonexistent; and during wars conscripts have to risk their lives for a cause which is mainly religious or in which religious-irreligious differences play a crucial role. At the same time also religionist countries pretend to represent all citizens and to be democratic, but if they are 'democratic' at all, then in nothing else than a cheap, majoritarian sense.

Something that both religionist and politico-ideological totalitarians will often allege is that a state could not be entirely impartial vis-à-vis the religious or other ideological beliefs of its citizens, or that a society would disintegrate if it did not embrace a common doctrinal ideology (in addition to, or instead of, a metadoctrinal theory of democracy). Should those totalitarians be right, there is only one alternative for the future: the disintegration of society must be prevented or brought to a standstill by the general acceptance of our doctrine as the new denominational one. If the unity of the nation is really what state religionists and party-political totalitarians are concerned about, they cannot refuse this offer. Hence, the unity of every nation, or the unity of humankind, shall either be attained by the universal adoption of the ideal of denominational inclusivity or else by the universal adoption of the ideal of inclusivist denominationalism.