Are there any religious sects (Christian or otherwise) that, once they have gained enough political power to assert control, have not used that power to assert control over outsiders instead of just saying “We’ve got ours, but we still plan to coexist peacefully with others.”? Does the “Live And Let Live” religious philosophy only apply when a sect is in the minority?
I’m not sure how much you mean by “assert control,” but Shinto was, for a long time, a majority in post-WWII Japan and, as far as I can tell, didn’t impose any sort of meaningful Shinto control or rules over non-Shinto people - in the sense that no non-Shinto people were being required to follow Shinto rules (I’m not even sure what Shinto imposing of power would look like anyway). However….this has to come with the asterisk that a lot of nominally-Shinto people are probably really just atheists deep down who’ve slapped a shallow religious label onto themselves.
Edit: Never mind. I think I may not be meeting your criteria because you specified “political power,” not just “demographic majority.”
Also, there being no central authority in control of Shinto, since they do not control themselves I can see where there might be a bit of trouble asserting control over others.
I’ll be following this. I’m curious if there are any Buddhist examples of live and let live, because some of the tenets can be pretty passive and some might say indifferent to what anyone else does, so my immediate thought was, “If this ever happened, it was probably with Buddhism."
I know there are plenty of examples of Buddhist corruption and violence, I’m just curious if there are counterexamples.
Please remember that this involves religious sects once they claim political power.
Depends as usual what the definitions include. For most of its first several hundred years Islam was very tolerant of Christians and Jews and the varied other religions in territories they had conquered. In most ways that continued until the 20th century, until the creation of Israel.
I wouldn’t consider Islam a sect. There are two main denominations - Shi’a and Sunni - which are fiercely opposed to one another these days. Are they sects? Do they treat one another as outsiders in the countries they control? Kurds are mostly Sunni and haven’t been treated well, to be sure, but have a semi-autonomous area in Shi’a Iran.
We could also have a very acrimonious debate over whether Christians have now or ever had political control in America. I could take either side and make a cracking good case.
I don’t think we could have sort of “acrimonious debate” since I never specified political control of an entire country, and if you could take either side that means that the political power being discussed seems to be iffy, at best.
I am wondering if it is possible for a religious sect (or denomination, if you will) to take control of political power without abusing it to further their own goals to the detriment of other religious sects (or denominations, if you will).
All I’m asking is for some clarification. If an entire country isn’t needed, what is? A region? A state? A city? An amorphous blob? What does political power mean? Is it de facto or de jure? Do American Catholics putting their beliefs into law concerning divorce, contraception, and abortion count as political power? What is a sect in the first place? What does “control over outsiders” mean?
I gave examples trying to guess what you meant and you didn’t give me any idea whether they were what you were looking for. How about you giving some examples for guidance?
Any example I could give would only result in others saying “Does that mean examples just like that one?” Why don’t you just give us the example you have in mind.
I think your question is definitely thought-provoking, but it’s also framed in a way that makes it a bit self-fulfilling. By asking whether any sect has ever gained political power without imposing control, when gaining political power is imposing control, it already leans toward the conclusion that ‘live and let live’ only works when a group is in the minority. That makes it hard to answer neutrally, since the burden is on someone to prove a rare exception.
That said, there are counterexamples. One that comes to mind is Athens in biblical times (specifically Acts 17), where Paul found the ‘altar to the unknown god.’ Athenian religion was deeply woven into civic life, so yes, it held political weight. Foreign gods and new cults were often absorbed rather than suppressed, and Paul was even allowed to present his message openly at the Areopagus. In this case, the dominant religious framework did not insist on control over outsiders.
Rare acceptions, any exceptions, are gladly accepted. This isn’t an “all or nothing” gotcha.
The Quakers originally held power in Pennsylvania, but they used that power to declare Pennsylvania to be free for all religions.
So far, that looks like a very good example. Thank you.
I was searching for a cite about the Quakers, just to be sure. We do know they murdered the Hell out of some whales.
Yeah, no-one respects the whale religions.
Not so much now, but there was:
Hard to do, since “asserting control” would mean preventing outsiders from asserting their own control. 
History does not support the idea of this supposed tolerance toward Jews.
The history you linked to starts in the 19th century. Islam itself started in the 7th century. That leaves plenty of room for “several hundred years” of tolerance. Your cite even says
Sure. Read the first two paragraphs of my first post. Jackmannii did.
That’s why I specified “most of history.” A number of earlier muslim empires spread from what is now Syria and Iraq to first conquer the lands between them and the Mediterranean and then spread across Africa and over into Spain. There were multiple overlapping dynasties vying for local and regional control and anything said about them would be a generalization. However, most accounts report that although they encouraged conversion, they did not enforce it. Members of other religions had to obey local laws, but that is a universal for insiders and outsiders in all cultures. Even taxes were more or less evenly imposed, with some examples of the “outsiders” paying more. Jews and Catholics were people of the book and recognized for their learning and contributions.
A good accessible source for this history - and my cite for the above - that puts it into a larger context is How the World Made the West: A 4,000 Year History by Josephine Quinn. She undermines the reactionary concept that “western culture” is a unique advanced mentality, one that has dominated British and therefore American history and ideology for hundreds of years, by ignoring all ideology and looking at what archeology says. That story is one of continuing connections between societies that began in Egypt and what we call Arabia, not just of conquest but of trade routes and cultural and religious influences. A number of open and tolerant kingdoms and small empires existed from time to time across all Mediterranean coasts before falling, usually by the sword. Highly recommended.
The article you cite doesn’t refute that history. It lists two instances of 19th century pogroms. Reprehensible to the extreme, but if you read the details you’ll see that both were carried out by dissident reactionary rebels against the more tolerant policies of official governments. The rest is the article concerns the 20th century.
The limits of tolerance are suggested by the fact the Quakers in Penn’s “Holy Experience” didn’t allow any non-Christians to vote or hold office.
That’s a rather selective interpretation, especially since the post I was responding to claimed that “In most ways that (very tolerant attitude) continued until the 20th century, until the creation of Israel.”
It’s a popular if grossly mistaken belief that Muslims lived in harmony with Jews in Palestine until the creation of Israel. The site I linked to describes horrifically violent pogroms against Jews occurring in 1834, 1838, 1920, 1921 and 1936 - in other words, more than the “two instances of 19th century pogroms” that Exapno_Mapcase describes. The one in 1834 went on for 33 days - surely time for Ottoman rulers (who had their own anti-Jewish policies in force) to do something about it if they had wanted to.
Much of the later anti-Jewish violence was spurred on by the Mufti of Jerusalem, who held an important position in the power structure of Palestine (he was appointed by the British and considered by them to be an important ally.* So much for the combination of power and “tolerance” (he was also very bad news for other Arabs who didn’t share his extreme views)
*they had a falling out after the Mufti was found to have gotten financial support from Fascist Italy and the Nazis and started plotting against the British, eventually fleeing to Germany.