My (lack of) religion’s attitude towards all religions:

May you all be touched by thy noodley appendage

“No God before me” can have, and does have in the history of Christianity, three possible interpretations.

• the exclusivist one (Evangelical churches mainly): the Christian God is the only God, you have to confess him directly to be saved.
• the inclusivist one (mainly the Catholic church, and some Protestants), the Christian God is the only God, but you can unknowingly pray him when you pray an other God within other traditions, in other words you can be Christian without knowing it.
• the pluralistic one (other Protestants), most religions are equally valuable, but if you are Christian you should pray only the Christian God.

Of course this is just a model, all positions are deeper than that and most people mix two or even the three models. I don’t know where the Orthodox Churches stand.

For myself, I tend to be somewhere between the second and the third model.

Interestingly, Christianity is compatible with Judaism and Islam in that regard, though I’m not sure exactly what the other two say in kind.

The Christian God is the Muslim Allah, who is also the Hebrew Yahweh. All the exact same being.

Two words: Spanish inquisition

Personally, as an agnostic (leaning atheist) I don’t have any particular dogma regarding other religions to follow. I will however share how I view religions.

• I’ve yet to encounter a religion that is verifiably true. As such I consider the religions of other people to essentially be opinions (personal beliefs).

• Opinions should not be held sacred in society, nor should they grant special rights.

• The religions of others only really become a problem if they make demands based on said religious belief, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, or spread verifiably false information.

Buddhism is widely accepting of other religions. I’m atheist, and love the teachings of the Buddhas.

Nothing, I have none. #KISS

It’s all about perspective

I always thought the Ottoman Empire’s millet system was interesting. Basically since it was a Muslim country that allowed other religions to exist, how do you rule them? Doesn’t seem quite fair to make them follow your religious rules, but also you are a religious empire protecting everybody and what’s in it for you to protect these non believers?

So they just had different legal systems set up for each religious community, and non-Muslims just had to pay a tax (the jizya).

Tiny deism is quantum religion. And thus, it is all religions.

In Gita, Shri Krishna says “I am everything”. This kind of kills the “otherness” of everything.

I am a pagan. There are pretty much no widely accepted texts within paganism that make any statements about subject. In my experience most pagans are quite happy to coexist with other religions in general - and given that in almost all circumstances pagans will be in a small minority that makes perfect sense. On the other hand, most pagans that I know are far less happy to coexist with the more bigoted and hateful varieties of religion.

There is a strong feminist trend within paganism and this - particularly linked with the ahistorial but often assumed heritage of witchcraft, and the associated history of hanging and burning of witches - does not lead the more patriarchal end of the Abrahamic religions to sit well with a lot of pagans - and I know a lot who are far happier about visiting the roofless moss-covered shell of an abandoned church, with a hawthorn growing in the apse than they are visiting an occupied one (unless it is in search of a sheel-na-gig etc).

On the other hand, there is a strand of Norse paganism that crosses into white supremacy and neo-nazism, so that brings its own hate, bigotry and patriarchy. I do not know what their stance on other religions is.

Asking seriously: “ no gods before me”, does that mean it’s ok to have gods after that god?

The bible says you are allowed to do with god’s enemies as you wish.