Co-existance between one-god worship and polytheism

[Hybris]

A simple example I didn't found : the roman Empire, during the first four centuries. Every one knows they were polytheists under César and the first Princeps (Emperors), but strangely, we oftenly forget that at the fall of the Empire, they were totaly monotheist, the christian religion being the State religion. So : during the first century, the christians were persecuted (depending of the location and the date - it wasn't every time), then quite tolerated, then the Princeps religion (Constantin, ~320), and finally the sole State religion, under Theodose, in 392. The rise of a monotheist religion replacing a monotheist one might an interesting concept. Because, of course it wasn't as linear as it look there, and there were a lot of conflicts (did you asked for pacific relations ?), but there was a coexistence, and at a time, a balance, probably.

 

[skip.knox]

And don't forget the influence of certain religions in certain areas of the Empire, both geographic and social. The example of Mithraism comes to mind. And on the other side, the early Christian heresies really did mean there were significantly different Christian experiences depending on when and where you lived.

 

[Gurkhal]

All true guys.

What I think that I was looking for, and probably is still looking for, is a situation where there's both monotheists and polytheists in strength but they are not at each other's throat in a big struggle. Hence have a world with that but not with religious conflict as one of the main conflicts in the setting.

 

[Queshire]

Hrm... well, depending on if you count Buddhism as monotheistic then you could take a look at Japan. There's a saying I've heard related to it. They're born Shinto, marry Christian and die Buddhist. Though that's more to do with rituals of each than actual belief.

 

[Hybris]

Maybe, still the roman Empire before Jesus, un Judaea (between roman polytheism and the Jews). As said elswhere, the local (jews, here) powers had retained a lot of power (it look for me really similar to a modern protectorate, more than a total annexion), so it could be quite balanced, and the roman administration let them believe what they wanted to believe.

 

[Gurkhal]

Hrm... well, depending on if you count Buddhism as monotheistic then you could take a look at Japan. There's a saying I've heard related to it. They're born Shinto, marry Christian and die Buddhist. Though that's more to do with rituals of each than actual belief.

I'm afraid I know to little about Buddhism to know if its a monotheistic religion although I'm inclined to say "no" in regards to that question.But then again I'm not very informed to know for sure.

Maybe, still the roman Empire before Jesus, un Judaea (between roman polytheism and the Jews). As said elswhere, the local (jews, here) powers had retained a lot of power (it look for me really similar to a modern protectorate, more than a total annexion), so it could be quite balanced, and the roman administration let them believe what they wanted to believe.

Also the relation between the polytheist Romans and the monotheistic Jews is in my opinion a very complicated affair.

Although I suppose that making the monotheistic religion be a communal or ethnic as opposed to a universalist one is a solution.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

I'm afraid I know to little about Buddhism to know if its a monotheistic religion although I'm inclined to say "no" in regards to that question.But then again I'm not very informed to know for sure.

Technically, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. There is no God/gods. Buddha himself isn't divine, just a great teacher.

What complicates matters is that Buddhism has been mixed and matched with several other religions, which do include deities. Since Buddhism is, at its core, a philosophy more than a religion, it can easily be mixed.

Culturally, the approach to religion in most of Asia is a mix and match one. Unlike in the West, where people identify as Christian to the exclusion of anything else, Muslim to the exclusion of anything else, Jewish to the exclusion of anything else, etc., religion in most of Asia isn't seen as an identity. People simply follow the beliefs and practices that make sense to them, and add gods or great teachers as they encounter them.

Your original question is based on the assumption that that Western view of religion, as an identity that excludes all other religions, is the view of religion. But that's actually a minority view, when all the world's traditional cultures are added together. If that view of religion were out of the picture, peaceful co-existence between monotheists and polytheists would much more easily happen, unless they had something else to fight over. If the monotheists belonged to one ethnicity and the polytheists to another, and there were ethnic tension between them, that would lead to fighting, and probably to persecution of whichever one was the minority by whichever one was the majority, but it wouldn't really be about religion. For a contemporary real life example, see what's been happening to the Uighurs in China.

Also the relation between the polytheist Romans and the monotheistic Jews is in my opinion a very complicated affair.

And it was much more about imperialism and ethnicity than about religion. And it didn't get any less complicated when the Romans became monotheistic Christians.

 

[ThinkerX]

Worth pointing out that some monotheistic religions, at least, are inclined to 'adopt' pagan concepts in a revamped form.

The 'life-death-life' of Jesus, for example, bears at least some resemblance to the 'dying/reborn' deities of the pagan pantheons (and might have been influenced by such, as the concept is mostly absent in Judaism.) Likewise, a few pagan deities might have been theologically remade into Christian saints.

Solaria, the principal nation of my principal world, is vehemently monotheistic - but the adherents of the True God worship at cathedrals and churches dedicated to a large number of saints, a few of whom predate the churches origin - though the priests don't like to talk about such matters.

 

[skip.knox]

All you need do is to make the monotheists will to let polytheism exist. If it's an area where polytheism is dominant, then you can follow models already suggested. If it's an area where the monotheists are dominant, you can use the medieval Islam model, with polytheists substituting for Jews and Christians. They pay a special tax, have their own temples, are forbidden to prostletyze. Everyone gets along, save for the occasional religious riot at the popular level.

And if there's parity, I look to the example of Reformation towns in the 16thc and 17thc. There aren't many examples, but one I happen to know is that of Augsburg, where there was an equal number of Catholics and Protestants on the City Council (of course, Protestant here excluded Anabaptists and other dangerous types <g>). I can't say it worked very well, nor did it last more than a couple of generations, but the example is there.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

They pay a special tax, have their own temples, are forbidden to prostletyze.

The "special" tax was the equivalent of a non-resident tax, paid because non-Muslims were exempt from the tithing requirement. Muslims had to give ten percent of their income to the religious establishment, to use for support of the poor and other essential services (zagat). Which meant they had to keep careful records of their income and calculate that ten percent. Non-Muslims were exempt from zagat, so they just paid a flat amount.

A very prosperous Christian or Jewish businessman in a Muslim country might very well end up paying less than his Muslim counterparts. A not so prosperous Christian or Jew could be stuck paying more.

 

[Gurkhal]

Sorry for the short replies. I appecitate your posts but I find that I'm not well versed in the details of the examples to really engage with them.

Culturally, the approach to religion in most of Asia is a mix and match one. Unlike in the West, where people identify as Christian to the exclusion of anything else, Muslim to the exclusion of anything else, Jewish to the exclusion of anything else, etc., religion in most of Asia isn't seen as an identity. People simply follow the beliefs and practices that make sense to them, and add gods or great teachers as they encounter them.

I am not Asian but a Westerner so it makes perfect sense to me to use my own cultural perception as a basis as opposed to try and use a perception for which I have had a rather limited exposure. But I shall make an effort to look into this and see where it leads me.

Your original question is based on the assumption that that Western view of religion, as an identity that excludes all other religions, is the view of religion. But that's actually a minority view, when all the world's traditional cultures are added together. If that view of religion were out of the picture, peaceful co-existence between monotheists and polytheists would much more easily happen, unless they had something else to fight over. If the monotheists belonged to one ethnicity and the polytheists to another, and there were ethnic tension between them, that would lead to fighting, and probably to persecution of whichever one was the minority by whichever one was the majority, but it wouldn't really be about religion.

At the moment I know to little about universalist religions outside of, well, I know to little at all at this moment. So I can't really answer this.

And it was much more about imperialism and ethnicity than about religion. And it didn't get any less complicated when the Romans became monotheistic Christians.

I am well aware. The question however wasn't between two groups of monotheists but between polytheists and a monotheists.

Worth pointing out that some monotheistic religions, at least, are inclined to 'adopt' pagan concepts in a revamped form.

I am aware of this but it don't say anything for how they actually get along.

The 'life-death-life' of Jesus, for example, bears at least some resemblance to the 'dying/reborn' deities of the pagan pantheons (and might have been influenced by such, as the concept is mostly absent in Judaism.) Likewise, a few pagan deities might have been theologically remade into Christian saints.

I am aware of this but it don't say anything for how they actually get along.

Solaria, the principal nation of my principal world, is vehemently monotheistic - but the adherents of the True God worship at cathedrals and churches dedicated to a large number of saints, a few of whom predate the churches origin - though the priests don't like to talk about such matters.

It don't say anything for how they actually get along.

All you need do is to make the monotheists will to let polytheism exist. If it's an area where polytheism is dominant, then you can follow models already suggested. If it's an area where the monotheists are dominant, you can use the medieval Islam model, with polytheists substituting for Jews and Christians. They pay a special tax, have their own temples, are forbidden to prostletyze. Everyone gets along, save for the occasional religious riot at the popular level.

This might be a possible view of it, yes. I think that I'll go with East Asian view of religion and do some research on that first and then we'll see where I end up.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

If you're just looking for a way for monotheists and polytheists to get along, look no further than the large cities in North America today. In New York or Toronto or San Francisco or LA or Chicago, and that's not an exhaustive list, different religions co-exist, people of different religions are friends, and no big fuss is made about it.

Those cities are pretty diverse, and the overall culture largely secular.

 

[skip.knox]

>the overall culture largely secular.
This is key. If the culture is fundamentally tied to one religion or another, even a polytheistic one, there will be issues. There will, for example, be feast days that are legally recognized while the non-state religion feast days are not. There may well be legal exemptions, tax privileges, and so on. All those create potential for conflict. The world-building might want to identify some and figure out ways they might be resolved, or might decide just to paper over them. With pages. Hah!

To me, it's interesting to explore how not just different religions but different *approaches* to religious practices--formal and informal--would affect a fictional world. Maybe my interest comes in part from teaching the Reformation all those years. For sure it makes me stay well away from the topic until I've developed all the Altearth religions in more depth.

 

[Aldarion]

Those cities are pretty diverse, and the overall culture largely secular.

Problem is that, historically, culture is highly tied to religion. One could even say that secular society is a sign of overall decay in culture, and is definitely tied to modernism.

 

[Queshire]

Sure, one could say that. One could also say supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

 

[skip.knox]

Could say that and have, except for the part about decline. I prefer to say change. Not only because it's more useful to the historian, I also prefer it as a writer.

I agree that the soft from religion to the secular is one of the most fundamental shifts in human history.

 

[Rosemary Tea]

One could even say that secular society is a sign of overall decay in culture, and is definitely tied to modernism.

There have been ones saying that for thousands of years.

To the Romans, early Christians were atheists: they didn't worship the recognized gods. Cultural decay! Decline of religion!

That wasn't the first instance of that, either. As I recall, atheism (and thereby promoting cultural decay) was one of the charges against Socrates.

And the definition of secular is fluid. To us, coming from a definition of religious based on a modern Christian norm, many of the polytheistic societies of the past would seem secular. Even the ostensibly Christian medieval peasants would be, to us, mostly secular: those who lived remotely, and there were many, might rarely if ever see a priest or a church in their lifetimes. Daily life was not religious at all. Religion was, in some cases, even less on their radar than it is for non-religious people living today.

But they weren't coming in contact with people of diverse religions, either. That's a hallmark of modern secular society.

 

[Gurkhal]

Problem is that, historically, culture is highly tied to religion. One could even say that secular society is a sign of overall decay in culture, and is definitely tied to modernism.

I wouldn't go that far. Secularism has been a part of, at least Europe, since the end of the Thirty Years' War unless I'm mistaken. Still it remains to see how it will play out in the long run with the more total secular state of society in parts of the world.

There have been ones saying that for thousands of years.

No. There have been a discussion however at no point in our history has secularism been so through in society as in parts of today's world.

To the Romans, early Christians were atheists: they didn't worship the recognized gods. Cultural decay! Decline of religion!

Not really. More like traitors who won't publically give their loyalty to the Roman Empire and representing a path of development that means the destruction of the polytheists traditions and way of life in the Roman Empire. The first one proved to be false as I've yet to see that Christians were less or more loyal to the Roman Empire than the polytheists. On the second however the polytheists did correctly identify that Christianity represented the end of the Greco-Roman polytheististic way of life. For good and ill.

And the definition of secular is fluid. To us, coming from a definition of religious based on a modern Christian norm, many of the polytheistic societies of the past would seem secular. Even the ostensibly Christian medieval peasants would be, to us, mostly secular: those who lived remotely, and there were many, might rarely if ever see a priest or a church in their lifetimes. Daily life was not religious at all. Religion was, in some cases, even less on their radar than it is for non-religious people living today.

This is plain wrong. Only a very shallow view of historical polytheist socities would manage to paint them as secular in any sort of way.

Peasants in the Middle Ages didn't need to see a priest or a church to be religious. That religion is something which is only done at separate and special times at special places seems like a very modern idea to me.

But they weren't coming in contact with people of diverse religions, either. That's a hallmark of modern secular society.

Just no. The most obvious example of coming into contact with people of diverse religions before the modern era is the Roman Empire and both before and after that, as well as in other parts of the world, people of different religions have been comingling.

 

[Queshire]

Oh yeah, the Romans had a habit of writing about other countries and saying that, no, no, they're really just worshiping the Roman gods under another name. It's actually kinda funny. They equate Odin with Mercury.

 

[skip.knox]

Secularism is, like all -isms, a slippery concept all the more tricky because it's one of those things that most people think they all agree upon. If pressed, they'll pose it in a negative: secularism is absence of religion or even anti-religion. This, without clearly defining what they mean by religion. Both those terms are wide open for discussion and disagreement.

As an early modern historian (yeah, I know, but with an MA in medieval and a PhD in early modern, I get to claim both!), the whole topic fascinates me. As a writer, it fascinates me all the more, as I remain convinced there's a novel or two in there for me (get in line buddy), as I find the topic is handled superficially in most fantasy novels. That's another thread.

I do think there are at least three models for the OP to look at, just drawing from the West. I leave to others recommendations from other cultures.

One model is the Greco-Roman model, which drew a fairly useful and effective line between practice and belief. So long as you behaved yourself, and performed any necessary reverences--respected the state religion--then what you did on your own time was more or less your own business. This rapprochement was put to the test when prostletyzing religions came along. It wasn't the monotheism so much as it was the insistence that the Romans were wrong and should convert, and that the monotheists shouldn't have to perform any of those external ceremonies. There just wasn't a place within the legal system to accommodate that.

A second model is the early medieval Christian Church (I know the Latin right better than the Greek). For centuries the Church showed tolerance toward pagans in a couple of ways. One, all were first to hear the Word of God preached and be given the opportunity to convert. The key act there was baptism, with a close second being the halting of pagan practices. Others followed on; one of these was tithing, which was a very sore point among many tribes recently converted. Once converted--and at times this was little more than the baptism of a clan chief or tribal king--if the people returned to paganism, then all bets were off. A "return to paganism" wasn't just some continued practice of seeing omens in birds, but was most seriously open rebellion. Not paying those tithes was a handy flash point, and rebellion could easily run to slaughtering priests, looting monasteries, and raiding into more Christian lands (which might well be an old tribal enemy). While the overall goal was the conversion of all peoples, the actual process could take generations, even centuries, and involve all manner of interesting compromises meanwhile. The most noticeable of these was the re-purposing of local sacred sites into Christian churches, and associating local spirits and gods with Christian saints.

The third model comes from the Reformation. Once Europeans wore themselves out with religious wars, they managed to find ways to allow multiple religions to exist within their own political boundaries. In some ways it was a return to the Roman model. Conformism externally, official neglect of what was internal. Or at least hidden. But here again, there were numerous exceptions and breakdowns in that approach, each of which makes for rich story-telling.

Short version: it can be done. Don't try imitate, just use other models for inspiration, then go create what works for your story.