Talk:Religious pluralism

(e.g. It is not possible for it to be equally true that Jesus is the son of God, and that Jesus was just a mortal human being.)

I find this example strange, in this is exactly what many people believe. To Hindus in particular, everyone is part of the divine, we are all Sons and Daughters of God. Namaste.. -- Chris Q 08:41 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hindus don't believe that every human being is literally God incarnate! Rather, they believe that each human soul is part of something divine, partof the godhead. That is a very different claim. RK

True, they don't mean that a person will have God-like powers or insight, but it just strikes me as a strange example. It also seems to me that many religions accept many contradictions within their own faith, while rejecting other faiths because they don't fit, e.g.:

• A merciful God who wants them to kill others.

• A God who is the One God and unique, but is father, son and holy spirit. Despite being one, you can only go to heaven by believing in The Son, or be condemned for blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

• A God who is omniscient and unchanging, but suddenly discovers the need for a "New Covenant".

• An all-powerful merciful God who has a "chosen people", who firstly have a tougher time than most, and secondly remain "chosen" despite not being very merciful to others.

Given these anomolies it should be fairly easy to accept some of the differences between religions! -- Chris Q 07:25 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I my opinion, the article won't be improved by discussing these remarks. Mkmcconn

Agree!! I just wanted a rant on the "selective flexibility" of some people's religious belief ;-) -- Chris Q 12:10 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Classical Christian views

Christianity teaches that on their own, it is impossible for any person to have a relationship with God ...

I'm looking at this section considering how to adjust it. It has a 'spin' -- maybe 'a wobble' is a better description. It isn't quite in focus. Few Christian teachers of any stripe will say that we "earn" salvation. Few would say that salvation consists of "renouncing one's faith" to adopt Christianity. Few - very few indeed - would say that Jews are specially targetted for damnation, and most would be amazed if their doctrine were interpreted that way. For a section that pretends to represent what Christianity teaches, it represents what may be believed by very few if any actual Christian persons. Mkmcconn

I was jarred by the "especially Jews, are specifically pointed to as destined for damnation." Where does this come from? I've been involved in a number of Christian traditions, and I've always thought the consensus to be that the Jews are God's chosen and will eventually be saved. (unless...Arminian free will theology here...they specifically reject salvation). Non Jews are only "grafted" into the covenant. Pollinator 19:03, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This take used to be echoed in a number of Christianity articles. Although most of these occurances have been over-written, I don't think that there is anywhere that it is refuted. See supersessionism, for example. Mkmcconn 19:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Mosques built on Hindu temples (Clarification)

It is definite that mosques were built on Hindu temple sites, though there are many sites where this is claimed but may not have happened. I don't think that the conversion of religious sites is unusual. Most of the medieval cathedrals in England were "converted" from Catholic cathedrals to Anglican ones, and some early Christian sites were converted from Celtic Christianity to Catholicism and then to Anglicanism.

Even today in England a "peaceful conversion" is taking place. Many under-used Anglican churches are being sold off. Some of these are being brought by other religious groups. Many are re-opening as Charismatic Christian Churches and at least one has ben converted to a mosque.

I disagree with the changes Stevertigo made in the introduction. He writes "Religious pluralism is essentially based on a non-literal view of one's religious traditions, hence allowing for respect to be engendered between different traditions on core principles rather than..." This is incorrect; religious pluralism is usually not based on this. People engaged in religious pluralism may interpret their religious writings differently than those who reject religious pluralism, but that has nothing to do with literal versus non-literal. In fact, centuries before religious pluralism became commonplace most of Judaism and Islam has already decided that one must not read one's texts literally; see the works of the great medieval Jewish and Muslim philosophers. This view was also predominant among the intellectual elite of Christianity at the time, and to a lesser degree today it still is. Also, I don't understand why Stevertigo mentions so prominently "Christian Zionism", which has nothing to do with this topic. This article is about all forms of religious pluralism, not solely about relations between Judaism and Christianity. Even when you mention Judaism and Christianity specifically, Christian Zionism has always been a minor topic. RK 13:22, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have doubts about the way this term is being used. Religious pluralism refers first to the existence of different religions, not to the attitude that this is a good thing etc. I.e., it's first a description, not a philosophy. One can describe conservatism or liberalism w/o being a conservative or liberal and some people regard religious pluralism as a bad thing. Jacquerie27 11:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what this phrase means. People who are advocates of religious pluralism are not admitting the existence of other religions; they are advocating of finding ways of accepting parts of each other's religions. In fact, your definition cannot be correct, because it implies that some people might not even admit the existence of other religions! No one denies that many religions exist; religious pluralism is a viewpoint in which a religious believer is not threatened by other religions, and in which a religious believer finds some kind of common ground with them. This is the usual understanding of the term in Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian and Jewish circles. RK 01:14, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

If I wanted to describe the state of affairs Jacquerie27 refers to, I would call this "religious plurality" - not an -ism. Religious pluralism is, as RK says, a viewpoint which accepts as a more or less normal condition, that diverse religions exist, but additionally that, these otherwise diverse religions have something in common with one another, which it would be mutually beneficial to emphasize. Mkmcconn 01:20, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you're failing to see the wood for the trees. There is no necessary connotation of change or adaptation in religious pluralism and the opening sentence applies much better to ecumenism. When I searched for the phrase rp on Google I got this as third hit:

The term "religious pluralism" can refer to

The diversity of religious movements within a particular geographical area, and/or The theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality and/or truth; and that therefore more than one religion can be said to have the truth (way to God, salvation, etcetera) - even if their essential doctrines are mutually exclusive.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p14.html

In the US, it is the secular state that oversees rp, i.e. that all religions (behaving legally) are regarded as in some way equal: the individual religions involved do not have to accept this and many don't. Religious pluralism could involve competition between religions, just as political pluralism does. Jacquerie27 12:01, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Added "For most religious traditions" in following sentence. For most religious traditions, religious pluralism is essentially based on a non-literal view of one's religious traditions, hence allowing for respect to be engendered between different traditions on core principles rather than more marginal issues.

This certainly is the case for most religious traditions, but I am not sure that it is universal. For example:

• Buddhism sees itself as a way of life, and has no trouble accepting "Christian Budhists", "Hindu Budhists" etc.
• Some religions such as Sikhism have teachings of religious tolerance, seeing other religions as worshiping God in different (though maybe less perfect) ways.
• Some newer religions, such as the Unification church and the Brahma Kumaris movement claim that all religions are valid attempts to find the truth but that they now have "the real answer". Though this falls short of the stronger forms of pluralism they undoubtedley teach respect of other traditions.
• The Unitarian church comes pretty close to fully accepting pluralism, both within and without their church.

---

I'm not going to get into the revision debate for this page (I'm sure others here are much more deeply aware of the differing opinions presesnt), except to note that sections 5 & 6 have the same title - it's more than slightly confusing, since when one is looking at the TOC it appears that something's just been repeated. MisfitToys

Hinduism neglected in pluralism article

I'll work on this later, so I'm not griping without intent to aid in rectifying the mistake. But I do find it ridiculous that Hinduism, one of whose most fundamental ideas is religious pluralism, has no mention in the article, and instead naturally exclusivistic religions like the Abrahamic ones are dealt with for hours on end! "Truth is one, though the sages know it variously." That is part of a Vedic hymn that any Hindu knows. A common saying in Hindi among Hindus is that "Bhagavan ek hi hai!" ("God is but one!"). Once, Gandhi is known to have said, in a crowd, that he was Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. and a Muslim in the crowd responded, "Only a Hindu would be able to say that." I think more time needs to be devoted to this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree totally. I previously put in a little in Section 5.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism#Hindu_views), but with limited knowledge. I look forward to seeing your expanded entry -- Chris Q 07:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

From the article:

The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of religion.

The truth of this statement is self-evident when a certain definition of fredom of religion is used, but certainly not when we have the definition:

Freedom of religion is when different religions of a particular region possess the same rights of worship and public expression

A clear counterexample is England, where the Church of England has special status, but religious pluralism is still prevalent. One or the other of these passages needs to be changed. CyborgTosser 00:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question is where does your definition come from? In that definition any country that has prayers at national events, swearing allegiance to "one country under God" or anything like that would not have religious freedom, as this is a special right.

In practice a country with religious freedom is one that does not restrict the rights of people to worship or public expression beyond the restrictions that would apply to secular speech. In other words someone inciting people to "kill the XXX" (substitute Christians, Jews, Arabs as appropriate) could be arrested in a country which had freedom of religion, but if someone had less right to come to your door and tell you about a religion than to tell you about a political party, double glazing or whatever, that would be a restriction on freedom of religion.

Also The existence of religious pluralism depends on the existence of freedom of religion, is a bit like saying The existence of people getting drunk depends on the legality of alcohol, clearly there will be people who believe and even illegally express support for religious pluralism in countries where it is not legal. -- Chris Q 06:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You make a good point. Perhaps a better way to word the first sentence is:

The existence of religious pluralism on a national scale depends on the existence of freedom of religion in that nation.

It is unfortunately not as concise as the original, but it is more correct. And of course, that still leaves the issue of rewriting the second statement. CyborgTosser 07:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Buddhism

I added a paragraph for Buddhism. I cannot claim that the views can accomodate all Buddhists (or all Buddhism!), but I feel that most Buddhists would agree with the gist of the issue.

I am aware that the para. concentrates on religious activity - namely the two core practices of compassion and wisdom - and would welcome comment. (20040302 09:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I think what you have is fine. I am not a Buddhist, and am therefore reluctant to add to this, but I believe there are concrete examples of Rligious Pluralism within Budhism, like Shinto-Budhists in Japan, and Thai Buddhism having many aspects of Hinduism. Maybe those would be worth a mention too. -- Chris Q 15:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm not sure whether or not religious pluralism within a given religion is a meaningful concept. Wouldn't that constitute material for a separate syncretism article? - Nat Krause 15:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chris, I tend to agree with NatK on this - it appears that you are mentioning cases of religious syncretism, rather than religious pluralism. (20040302)

Unitarians?

I was raised as a Unitarian, and basically I was taught that there are many religions, and no single one of them is necessarily correct. Why aren't they (the Unitarians) mentioned here??

You're right. Feel free to add a mention to the article. I linked Unitarian Universalism in the "see also" section, but you can probably do better than that. Rhobite 05:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)