It needs no explanation that a symbol typical of the DNI which represents neutral-inclusivity, or the neutral-inclusivistic interpretation of truth and relevance, is for us an acceptable symbol. But, conversely, an acceptable symbol need not per se be a symbol typical of the DNI; it may also be a non- or interdenominational symbol or a symbol which originated in another ideology. Symbols of other ideologies than the DNI are not necessarily incompatible with Ananormative concepts and principles. Partially the symbolism of a different doctrine may more or less accidentally even coincide with one or more aspects of the neutral-inclusive symbolism. Or, the use of a symbol may be acceptable but not the traditional interpretation as taught by such a doctrine.

On the basis of acceptability four types of symbol can be distinguished. They are:

1. typical symbols: symbols typical of the DNI or the Ananorm
2. compatible symbols: acceptable symbols which are not typical of the Ananorm
3. antisymbols: unacceptable symbols which are somehow imposed on adherents of the Ananorm
4. nonimposed incompatible symbols: unacceptable symbols which are in no way imposed on adherents of the Ananorm

To every symbol to which a positive value is assigned by one ideological group (the in-group) a negative value can be assigned by another ideological group (the out-group). If a symbol is supposed to represent a positive value but is in some way forced upon a person or group for which it has a negative value, then it is an antisymbol for that person or group. Hence, it is the combination of incompatibility and importunity, even when merely psychological, which makes the symbol of another ideology into an antisymbol. A symbol with which we are not unnecessarily and involuntarily confronted need not be experienced as an antisymbol, however much what it stands for may deviate from our own denominational convictions.

People for whom a certain symbol represents a positive value, and people who do not care in this respect, cannot judge very well whether this same symbol represents a negative value or not for a person or group adhering to an ideology with another system of symbols. Especially when such a symbol is in some way foisted onto nonadherents, it may, because of the injustice involved, even have a much stronger negative meaning for those upon whom it is imposed than a positive meaning for those who accept the symbolism it forms part of. State religionists, for instance, and people without a denominational belief, often claim that symbols are not important when the matter of the imposition of certain symbols by the state is raised. Yet, they only dare claim this so long as those symbols represent their own or the traditional paradigm. Similarly, they may speak of "the need of empathy in morality" so long as this does not refer to the ability to understand veridicalistic or other nonreligious feelings towards imposed religious symbols.

In those countries which do not respect denominational or ideological inclusivity, such as the complete separation of state and religion, it is easy to find examples of antisymbols in the law, the state rituals, the flag, the so-called 'national' anthem, the official days of observance, the money issued, the names given to public buildings and streets, and so on and so forth. In religionist states it is the symbols of one particular religion or set of religions (such as the monotheist ones) which have been adopted by the governmental apparatus itself. By the manner of presenting and perpetuating them officially, those symbols are imposed upon all citizens regardless of the denominational doctrine or ideology these citizens personally sympathize with. In such states all citizens are legally and/or socially forced to directly or indirectly pay respect to the symbolism of one privileged religion or set of religions. The symbol, system of symbols or form of symbolism in question may (and should) therefore acquire a definitely negative connotation: it becomes a symbol of denominational discrimination or exclusivism; perhaps of general, ideological exclusivism; perhaps of nonphysical or general, subanthropic exclusivism; and perhaps even of exclusivism in general, particularly for members of the relevantistic community.

In countries or regions where there is a complete, fundamental and symbolic, separation of state and religion or comprehensive ideology in general, the adherents of the neutral-inclusive Norm will be able to live in peaceful coexistence with other citizens and without antisymbols. No denominational symbol, not even a neutralistic one, will then be forced upon them. In all those countries or regions of the world where the adherents of the Ananorm are confronted with antisymbols, they shall take those symbols at least as seriously as the people who flout the right to personhood or the principle of ideological inclusivity. But instead of propagating those symbols, they shall oppose them with arguments and all other suitable means; or, so long as ideological or denominational equality is not respected by the exponents of the counterideology in question, they shall replace or juxtapose those antisymbols with the intrinsic symbols of neutralism-inclusivism, if necessary even in an interideological context.

The right to personhood and the principle of denominational inclusivity require the total, fundamental and symbolic, separation of state and comprehensive ideology, whether theocentristic or normistic, religious or nonreligious, theodemonistic or nontheodemonistic, and whether recognizing a principal being or not recognizing such a being. Since a person's world-outlook is a private affair (if, and to the extent that not everyone's world-outlook is the same), 'e must not in any way, alone or with others, use public institutions to impose the particular, doctrinal values and/or symbols of 'er ideology on other citizens who do not believe in those values or symbols.

Even for people living in a time in which countless forms of interideological exclusivism afflict the whole world once the moment must come that in all countries of this same world, or in the only country as the case may be, all forms of denominational exclusivity and exclusion will be eradicated both in the fundamental and in the symbolic field. Humankind should be able to celebrate the dawning of this age of worldwide denominational freedom and equality in the year 1.

Those who naively claim that the year 1 passed already hundreds or thousands of years ago have merely been deceived, or have merely deceived themselves, into believing that the system of chronological notation of their own part of the world, or of the denominational paradigm of their own time, would have universal validity. But a year numbered according to a supernaturalist or exclusivist system of chronological notation can never mark the beginning of an era of respect for people, regardless of their denominational convictions; at the most it will mark the end of the era of the old paradigm's symbol imposition, and hopefully of all supernaturalism and exclusivism with it. Moreover, the year EI 1 (that is, of the era of denominational or ideological inclusivity) does not and must not in any way indicate the official adoption by the state of one or more symbols typical of the DNI either, as this itself would be ideologically exclusivistic.

The age-old, irrelevantist systems of chronological notation are the last antisymbols to be officially abolished when all other vestiges of state religionism or totalitarianism have already been wiped out. The abolition of these last official antisymbols should therefore take place in the year BI 1, that is, before (the era of denominational or ideological) inclusivity.

Only the future can tell those who lived in the times of state religionism and other brands of ideological totalitarianism what year they really lived in or 'will have lived in': was it something like BI 100? BI 200? BI 400? The early readers of this Model, or all the people who were born before the year 1, should not only hope that the exclusivist era will not last much longer, they should personally contribute to (the hastening of) its actual arrest. The least they can do, then, is not to voluntarily perpetuate its unacceptable symbolism.