The so called debates on religion are so clearly a tribute to the idea that only the Western Judeo- Christian group are real religions. All the others just don't count. There are many others, but I'd like to focus on two books that make for a broader and more enlightening discussion. The first book is:God is Red by Vine Deloria, Jr. The second is a little book by the Dalai Lama: The Four Noble Truths Both are books worth reading from cover to cover but I'd like to focus a few passages to make the point that we are neglecting some things that are very important.
Deloria critiques Western Christianity from the viewpoint of a Native American scholar interpreting his religion in contrast to Western Christianity. Chapter 5 The problem of creation begins this way
Indian tribal religions and Christianity differ on numerous theological points, but a very major distinction that can be made between the two types of thinking concerns the idea of creation. Christianity has traditionally appeared to place its major emphasis on creation as a specific event while the Indian tribal religions could be said to consider creation as an ecosystem present in a definable place. In this distinction we have again the fundamental problem of whether we consider the reality of our experience as capable of being described in terms of space or time- as "what happened here" or "what happened then."
The event orientation has within itself an interesting paradox that Deloria focuses on.
The act of creation is a singularly important event for the Christian. It describes the sequence in which the tangible features of human existence are brought into being ... it would appear that the importance of the creation event is that it sets the scene for an understanding of the entrance of sin into the world.
The fall and the events following it are central in this distinction between the two religious views. The implications are quite forceful.
The first distinction between Indian tribal religions and Christianity would appear to be the manner in which deity is popularly conceived. The overwhelming majority of American Indian tribal religions refused to represent diety anthropomorphically... The difference between conceiving God as an anthropomorphic being and as an undefinable presence carries over into the distinction in the views of creation. Closely following the creation of the world in Christian theology comes from the disobedience of man, Adam, in eating the forbidden fruit growing on a tree in the Garden of Eden. In this act as recorded in Genesis humankind "fell" from God's grace and was driven out of the garden by the angry God. The major thesis of the Christian religion is thus contained in its creation story, because it is for the redemption of man that the atonement of Jesus of Nazareth is considered to make sense. (my emphasis)
With the fall of Adam the rest of nature also falls out of grace with God. Adam being a surrogate for the whole of creation.
Deloria goes on to review the problems this has caused for Christian theology. It seems so simple as he frames the issue. If there was no fall then there is no need for redemption. Hence the Christian version of creation has to be more than an allegory or myth. He also reviews the many arguments that have been made implicating the fall of nature in the entire attitude that Christianity has towards nature and the way it is to be treated by man. Many have made the case that our environmental irresponibility is fostered by this special notion of nature. The way nature is seen in Tribal religions has none of this element of a fall and a subsequent need for nature itself to be "dominated" by man. In fact the Tribal religions have an entirely different concept for the relationship of man to the rest of nature. The simple way to speak of it is in terms of the equality of all the elements of creation. It is much more complex than that, but this simplification serves to contrast it with the Christian view. I urge you to read this book to get the full impact of the distinctions oulined here.
Now let's switch to another religion. In the Introduction to The Four Noble Truths, the Dalai Lama expresses his view towards other religions. A brief excerpt will suffice to contrast with so much of what we are hearing these days:
Generally speaking I believe that all the major world religions have the potential to serve humanity and develop good human beings....I mean that they have a good and more compassionate heart. This is why I always said that it is better to follow ones own traditional religion, because by changing religion you may eventually find emotional or intellectual dificulties.
Contrast this attitude with that that says that all other religions are false and that the whole doctrine of the fall requires that they be abandoned if their followers are to be "saved."
In the recent political hubris about religion we are exposed to a very narrow and self serving world view no matter who is speaking because the context of the discussion is so circumscribed! It seems that we are never going to really face the issue of religion in our society with the ability to recognize its peculiar flavor and its need to shut out alternatives. Two very learned people are telling us to open our eyes and see the world around us. The problem may be that if people were to do that they would be changed irreversibly. It is difficult to hold on to a world view that relates to the rest of humankind in negative ways if the justification for doing so is shown to be a myth rather than absolute truth. I can only see the "progress" of any inherantly intollerant religion as part of our political landscape as bringing more and more repression of other views.