The Question: Should religions compete?

The Guardian's Comment is Free - belief website runs a weekly feature called The Question, posing one at the start of the week, then publishing commissioend responses on the Monday, Wednesday and Friday following (along with the facility for readers to post responses of their own). This week's question is, "Should Religions compete?"

Mormon missionaries make a house visit in Ulaan Baator, Mongolia, 8 July 2005. Photograph: Elizabeth Dalziel/AP

Should religions compete?

Would the world be a better place if religions concerned themselves only with the crimes and follies of their own?

Almost all monotheisms are missionary religions. It is not enough to worship one God: it must be the right one, and in the right way. The Church of England last week released a report saying that of course it was right to try to convert unbelievers – what else could it say? – and many Muslim missionary organisations are active in this country. Atheists are constantly trying to prove believers wrong; Jews may not proselytise much in the outside world but they are happy to convert each other. But is this wrong?

Does all this activity leave anyone wiser or better, or closer to the truth? Everyone knows how off-putting it is to be the victim of conversion attempts. And where does pointing out the folly of certain ideas shade into pointing out that the people who hold them are fools? The clash of ideas and of values is a central part of the modern liberal vision of a good society. It is meant to be one of the things that makes societies worth living in. But is it possible to carry things too far? And how do we stop arguments about ideas from becoming tribal? Would the world be a better place if religions concerned themselves only with the crimes and follies of their own: if Catholics only told other Catholics what to do, and atheists only lectured atheists?