Jump to content

Talk:Religious pluralism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

old talk

Uh, I have issues with a couple of sentences:

the Jews teach that their faith is only the most complete and accurate revelation of God to humanity that we have ........... Judaism held that although only Judaism was true

First, this characterization may lead some to believe that "pluralism" means that everyone has an equal right to be ethnocentric (or whatever). It isn't that I disagree with this, but this is a view an outsider (someone in an objective or non-partisan) position can believe about "religions" – this is very different from a religion itself taking a pluralist position vis a vis itself and other religions.

Could you clarify your thoughts on this issue. The sentence you mention was specifically in the section on "Jewish views"; this it was not a claim about pluralism in general, it was only about a Jewish view of pluralism. RK
What I mean is this: to me, this account of Judaism makes Judaism (at least according to some people at one time) non-pluralistic. The article points out that in a rather different way Christianity, or a major version of Christianity, is non-pluralistic. Now, in the other articles we have been discussing, I think the major thread of the discussion was attempts within those religious traditions to revise their views of themselves so that they would become pluralistic in their own attitudes towards the truth. But looking at the descriptions of Judaism and Christianity in this article, I see a different attempt -- also valid, important, and in many ways related, but still, I think, different -- which is, how can someone who is not an Orthodox/fundamentalist Christian or Jew come up with a set of beliefs about "the truth" that would allow them to respect both orthodox/fundamentalist Christianity. I guess I am asking "pluralism for whom?" and "pluralism for what purpose? because I strongly suspect that people who answer these questions differently are likely to come up with different kinds of pluralisms. (SR)
Oh, absolutely. I am trying to cast a fairly wide net within this entry, showing how many different people come up with many different forms of pluralism. What one person considers pluralistic will be considered too liberal by some, and not liberal enough by others. That's why I immediately broke things up by religion. Eventually as this article grows with more contributions, specific positions from specific theologians can be mentioned within each category. For example (and in broad strokes) Reform Jews are generally concerned with developing more maximal forms of pluralism; Orthodox Jews are uncomfortable with anything more than the most minimal forms; Conservative Jewish scholars are obsessed (correctly, in my anal-retentive view) with the theological and halakhic implications, and the need to balance them with intellectual integrity. RK
SR, You write "What I mean is this: to me, this account of Judaism makes Judaism (at least according to some people at one time) non-pluralistic." In what way do you mean this? Judaism in many eras didn't grant other religions the same respect that it gave itself (and I think often for good reason). It even disparaged them for some of their practices. However ancient Judaism still held that gentiles in other religions (even pagan ones) could still live good lives, could have a relationship with God, and could still have an afterlife or Heavenly reward. Heck, pagans could even by prophets. So this certainly fits what many people today call pluralism, even if it isn't the most liberal such version. In fact, ancient Judaism was infinitely more pluralisitic than most denominations of Christianity today. (i.e. most forms of Christianity are still anti-pluralistic in the extreme, and claim that Jesus and Jesus alone is the only way to God.) RK

Second, and more important, I question the accuracy of this claim about Judaism. Does the Jewish tradition (either the sages in the Talmud, or the major midrashic works) claim that the Hebrew/Jewish religion is "the most complete an accurate?" I don't think so, although I would defer to RK or others. But I really don't believe that Judaism ever held that "only Judaism" was true. - SR

There are many traditional rabbinic statements to this effect, yes. In fact, I am understating the traditional Jewish view. Although I am not Orthodox, I admit that many non-Orthodox rabbis fail to accurately describe the views of our religious predecessors to their congregations. In some ways, Orthodox rabbis are correct when they say that non-Orthodox rabbis over-stress the pluralistic parts of Judaism, and fail to quote the many parts of the tradition which explicitly state that other faiths are incomplete or misleading. (These people, however, did not claim that all gentile faiths were completely false.) The non-Orthodox may be correct in stressing that we need to concentrate on and develop the pluralistic path, but they need to explain that the path they teach is not synonmous with what every Jewish community in the past has believed. (Similar, yes.) Over the next week I will be adding more references and quotes on this topic from Jewish, Christian and Muslim perspectives, with quotes and resources for further reading. RK
First of all, I am a little skeptical of Orthodox Jewish claims that their account of "traditional" Judaism really reflects the beliefs of, say, the Tanaim. Pilpul and a whole lot of midrashic technique often involves making claims about what a text "really" means by taking it out of context and putting it in a new one. I am not claiming that I really know what the Tanaim really thought. I am claiming that knowing what they thought is not so simple as just reading the Talmud, because the reading that makes most sense to us today, or made the most sense to people in the 10th century, may nevertheless not be how people in the 2nd century understood things. (SR)
When it comes to many Orthodox Jewish specific claims about the Jewish principles of faith, Jewish historians of religion are certain that the Orthodox are often wrong in their discussion of the issue. They are also often wrong when it comes to discussing even the details of how halakha (Jewish law) has developed. And the Jewish scholars I rely on include Modern Orthodox rabbis, as well as non-Orthodox scholars, so I am not being anti-Orthodox; rather, I just am pro-historical method. So I agree with everything you say here. RK
My point was more restricted - for this specific issue, the Orthodox are correct to point out that the left-wing of Judaism really has over-stated its case. While it might be right to go down this path, that's not precisely the same path we always had trod. When it comes to halakha, liberal Judaism always feels free to say that its path is based on the classical sources, but is not identical to them. However, when it comes to theology, on occasion liberal Jews fall into a neo-Orthodox revisionist history, saying "Our way is precisely the same as the classical Jewish way", when in fact it isn't so. It may be based on, derived from it, etc, but that's different. RK
That said, let's say I grant your point (I know you know these texts a lot better than I do). I think that for me the crucial issue here is that not all Jews agree, and Judaism has changed. I think even "traditional" or "classic" Judaism may be too broad a term. I understand that I may be asking for a degree of detail inappropriate for the article, but beyond distinguishing between Tanaim and Amoraim and Medieval commentators, I'd even like to see distinctions between J and D discussed! (SR)
I agree; pre-Enlightenment Judaism has always ahd a range of views on this subject (as it also has had on all other theological issues.) Thus, I have gathered some quotes from a number of sources, including Maimonides, and less well-known medieval Jewish theologians, as well as some modern day theologians. These will be added to the entry over the next few days. I will add a list of specific references for further reading today. Just one minor disagreement. I don't think that distinctions between J and D are possible, because we don't know such details. Further, all historical records of the Israelite religion and Judaism are from the post-Torah redaction era. There are no sects of Judaism, even in the time of Hillel and Shammai (and Jesus) that were of the "J" persuasion, as opposed to the "D" persuasion. Its practically pre-history. RK
I admit I have an underlying motive for this preference. When we scrutinize differences in beliefs and attitudes over time, it becomes possible to show how those beliefs and practices were influenced by their historical context. Thus, beliefs that appear to be absolute are revealed to be contingent. (SR) Perhaps my position is controversial. But if you share or are sympathetic with my view, I think explicating these changing attitudes, and trying to account for why at one time Jewish claims may not have been absolute at all, then they were very absolute, then they became more moderate again, etc., would add tremendously to the educational value of the article. (SR)
Your belief indeed is controversial to most Orthodox Jews, but not to anyone who studies the development of Judaism in its historical context. It is certainly not controversial to me, but rather a dispassionate claim about historical development. In fact, I would like to share some reccomendations for some of the books on this topicRK
  • "The Dynamics of Judaism: A Study in Jewish Law". Robert Gordis Pub. by Indiana Univ. Press, 1990.
  • "A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law" Elliot N. Dorff and Arthur Rosett, SUNY Press
  • "A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility, and Creativity in Jewish Law" Louis Jacobs, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, Revised edition
  • "Etz Hayim: A Torah Commentary", Edited by David Lieber et al. The JPS Torah commentary series serves as the basis of the new Torah commentary of the Conservative movement. This 1500 page book, with Torah and haftorah commentary, makes use of literary analysis, intertextual commentary relating each book to other biblical books, and evidence from modern archaeological discoveries.
  • "Philosophies of Judaism" by Julius Guttmann, trans. by David Silverman, JPS. 1964.
  • "Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman's Voice" Judith Hauptman, pb, HC 336 pages, Westview Press, 1998. Acknowledging that Judaism, as described in both the Bible and the Talmud, was patriarchal, Hauptman demonstrates that the rabbis of the Talmud made significant changes in key areas of Jewish law in order to benefit women. Reading the texts with feminist sensibilities, the author shows that although the rabbis whose rulings are recorded in the Talmud did not achieve full equality for women, they should be credited with giving women higher status and more rights.

http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/reading/bookexc/hauptman_reread/ Re-reading the Rabbis

I do believe that it held, categorically, that God exists and is one, and that all polytheistic faiths are categorically wrong. This is significant and must be recognized. Nevertheless, this is a Jewish claim about the world, not a Jewish claim about Judaism. I mean, Genesis tells of God's relationship with Adam and Noah, the fathers of ALL of us (i.e. humanity) but although this is a "Jewish" belief in that Jews believe it, it is not a belief about Jews because Adam and Noah were not Jewish, were not Children of Israel, were not Hebrews. - SR

I agree. I didn't realize that the entry, in its present early state, implied otherwise. It can be rewritten. RK
Well, it is a judgement call and I am not so sure myself. But I do think that there are people out there who think that because Noah or even Job are in the Bible, they must have been Jewish. (SR)
Yes, SR, but you have to understand that people with such uneducated views are simple people, people of the Earth, the common folk...you know, morons. (Thanks to Mel Brooks, Blazing Sadles) RK
And as a Jew, I am very proud that one of the greatest (in my opinion) books on our relationship to God is about a non-Jew. And the significance of course is not that non-Jews can reach God, but that they can reach God by being righteous in their own way and not only do they not have to obey halakha, they do not even have to believe in the covenant at Sinai or even that anything happened at all at Sinai! (SR)

Judaism (Hebrew/Israelite religion) claims that other Gods are false Gods and that other peoples will come to no good worshiping them. It also hates it when Jews worship false Gods. But I do not recall ANYTHING that suggests that Judaism as such is "true" for non-Jews. God is true for all, but Judaism as such is for Jews! Given this I do not understand the claim that "Judaism held that only Judaism was true." I just don't think Judaism ever claimed this.

I agree. I don't think that the article implies this, but if it does, just point out where and it can be rewritten. Or maybe the entry doesn't say anything about this either way, and this point just needs to be made explicit. The way I understand it is this: Judaism claims that the Jewish faith really is true in an absolute sense, and not just for Jews. (Of course, how can one hold that facts are relative?) I wanted to say that Judaism, however, also teaches that gentiles are not obligated to become Jews. In fact, Judaism only teaches that gentiles have a very small list obligations that they are bound to follow (i.e. the 7 Noachide laws.) RK
I think in context these points should be incorporated into the article. But I must point out that there are many people who do not at all define facts as absolute, but indeed claim that they are relative. People who follow the later Wittgenstein would argue that what constitutes a "fact" is contingent on the particular language-game. Some historians of science would arge that what is recognized as a fact is depends on what paradigm you are operating in. Some social scientists (there is a famous book called The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckman) argue that facts are social constructs. And of course, these views provide great theoretical justification for any kind of pluralism. (SR)
Ironically, I believe that Wittgenstein later retracted his claims that all such issues are just language-games, and he realized that some such claims do have set meaning and truth consequences. But some post-modernists latched onto his earlier views, and took them for a ride. They do provide a basis for pluralism, but only by denying the existence of all facts and logic. There are sounder ways to achieve the desired goal! [RK

Also the revelation at Sinai was a profound event for Jews. But wasn't it just for Jews? Does anything in the account claim that it was the most complete an accurate revelation of God? I am not sure that the Torah or the Talmud ever even claim that it is possible for God to reveal Himself "completely." - SR

I fully agree, Judaism holds that the teachings of the Torah are just for Jews. Gentiles are not bound to follow all the laws therein. Judaism does not teach that the Torah, or even the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) is the final and complete word of God. In fact, Judaism holds by the precise opposite; that no one document or set of documents can ever contain the total and unambiguous word of God. That is precisely the point of the oral law. I think this point is mentioned somewhere further down in the entry, although it could be made more explicit and moved to a better location. RK
yes, I think these points are important enough that they should be more explicit. (SR)

Perhaps I am ignorant of some important proof-texts – which I hope someone would then provide. I have just enough doubt to not want to revise the article unilaterally -- SR

Here are some 'proof-texts' from the Old Testament that many Christians interpret to mean that the Hebrew religion was intended to be shared with the entire world.
* Isaiah 42:6-7 -- Israel is to be a light to the nations.
* Genesis 12:3 -- God told Abraham, "... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
* Daniel ch. 3-4 -- Nebuchadnezzar ends by praising the God of Daniel.
* Daniel 6:26-27 -- Darius decrees that everyone in his kingdom should worship the God of Daniel.
* Jonah 3:2-10 -- Jonah tells the people of Ninevah, outside of Israel and Judah, to repent; they do, and God forgives them.
* Joel 2:28-29 -- "Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh..."
* Amos and other prophets not only called Israel and Judah to repent of their sins, but the surrounding nations as well.
* 2 Kings 5 -- Naaman the Syrian was instructed by Elisha to wash in the Jordan to be cured of his leprosy. He was offended at this, thinking his own Syrian rivers were just as good, but was healed when he followed Elisha's instructions.
* There is also Rahab of Jericho who joined the Israelites, and Ruth the Moabite who married Boaz and declared her faith in the Hebrew God, and other such individuals.
These are undoubtedly 'proof-texts' and subject to differing interpretations. Nevertheless, these and other passages suggest to Christians that God revealed himself to the Hebrews in a special way so that he could be revealed to people of all nations and religions. --Wesley
As you say, these are crucial prooftexts that can be interpreted in different ways. I understand how Christians have used them. I would like to suggest a different interpretation -- one that is not meant to invalidate Christians' right to reinterpret the Bible and find their own meaning in it, but one that I personally believe is closer to the intended meaning i.e. more consistent with what I know of that time in history. I think all of these verses reflect the one universal claim of later Israelite religion (i.e. perhaps not of J but certainly of P), that there is one God, and God (El/Allah) is God for everyone. But I see these same verses as establishing the pluralism that Judaism expresses within this one universal claim -- that everyone should worship God, but in their own way, in other words
1) Jews have their way of worshiping God, which does not invalidate the Persian's way of worshiping God, and
2) Persians can find their way of worshiping God, which although different from that of the Jews is no more or less right and does not invalidate the Jewish way (an attitude we Jews wish all other religious communities could adopt!)
Amos certainly should make all people, not just Jews, feel a little uncomfortable about "their" sins -- just as Jonah should give non-Jews comfort. But I put "their" in quotes because it is by no means clear that the other nations are judged the same way as Jews, I mean, their sins do not consist of their having been excluded from the Covenant God made with Abraham and reformulated and renewed at Sinai, or their having not obeyed halakha. What were their sins? Going back to the Isralite's universalism, I imagine not following the Noahide laws or general principles of ethics. In any case, the point is they are not being punished for not being Jews (I hate to harp on this, but since the topic is pluralism, some Christian claims make it seem that Jews would be punished for not being Christian -- I am simply trying to note a difference in how Jews think of non-Jews versus how Christians think of non-Christians).
Finally, a note about Ruth: I take her "conversion" to actually provide an amazing example of a certain kind of pluralism. She does not convert while she is living in her own land among her own people, even when she marries Chilion (is that his name?). It is only when she decides to accompany her mother-in-law back to Judah that she "converts." The text refers to Orpah returning to her own mother's house and to "her people and her god," and when ruth enters the land of Judah with her monteher-in-law, she says "your people will be my people, your god will be my god." This may be an even earlier form of pluralism than the later Israelite pluralism that insists that there is only one God! In this account, different peoples have their own gods, and to join a nation is to change the god you worship. We don't really live in this kind of world anymore, but it seems to me that the analogy would be, if you (Wesley) or another Christian were to move to Israel to live among Jews, you would stop worshiping Christ and adopt Judaism; were I to move to Italy I would stop being Jewish and start practicing Catholicism; were I to move to England I would become an Anglican, etc. (NOTE: I would suggest that the Roman Empire really changed the world so much that this kind of pluralism could no longer work, which is perhaps one reason why both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rejected/repressed/simply could not "get" it; I certainly think it doesn't work in secular/liberal democratic state like the USA (hence, Eric's allusion to political pluralism), which is perhaps why you, RK and I are so interested in this topic)
minimally, my point (which I think you agre with) is that it is important to show how texts have been interepreted in didfferent ways. But for the purpose of this article I am making a further claim, that we should seek out repressed pluralisms in Biblical verses (repressed not only by Christians but by Pharisees or later Rabbinic interpreters, perhaps). -- SR

I have an issue with the definition of religious pluralism. Isn't it not just theological attempts at reconciliation of some sort, but also political? And pluralism in a political sense is a different issue entirely from the theological sense. Perhaps this is really an article on ecumenism rather than pluralism. --Eric

Good points. First, I do think that pluralism is a political issue, among other things, but certainly a larger issue -- eventually I hope this article would be linked to a more general one on pluralism. - SR
Are you sure? The Jewish and Christian sources I have read seem to be strictly philosophical, theological and ethics-based. RK
Yes, I am sure -- I grant that theologians and religious leaders may be ignorant of the current work by legal scholars and political theorists. I grant that they may not need to know what those other people are doing; indeed, perhaps political theorists and legal scholars would benefit from learning what theologians are talking about. Nevertheless, the issue of pluralism really is a crucial issue in political theory. Stanley Fish has written about this, although I cannot give refernces. Also, look for a book edited by Amy Guttman called Multiculturalism (SR)
Second, this article is motivated by some lengthy discussions on other pages, espeically "Christian anti-semitism" and "Anti-semitic verses in the New Testament;" certainly there are conceptual issues in taking elements of that discussion out of context to develop a new article -- perhaps here is where you can make more specific contributions. Finally, the issue of ecumenicism is important but I think different (although there would be value to a linked page). Ecumenicism has a narrow and a broad meaning. The narrow one is really inappropriate here -- an attempt to bring together various Christian churches/movements/sects. The broader meaning suggests some kind of universally or generally accepted claim. In the case of Christianity and Judaism, belief in God/theism is a basis for ecumenicism. But I do not think that that really gets to the issue that people here want to address. - SR
I agree. The first definition of ecumenism that you bring up does not fall under religious pluralism. In fact, ecumenism (in this sense) may well be more political than theological. Perhaps this is what Eric means. The second definition of ecumenism that you bring up does is different; that version is a theological issue that many refer to as a "religious pluralism" issue. In responde to your point below, I would say that this secondary meaning of ecumenism is a part of religious pluralism, rather than a separate topic. Pluralism is used by many different people to cover a wide array of ideas.RK
You may be right, I haven't thought it through enough. In any event, I think a paragraph in the article situating pluralism as a notion (it is the opposite of x; it is like y and like z but in different ways) would be really useful. (SR)
Pluralism is different from ecumencisism in that if refers to how groups with conflicting or exclusive beliefs can relate to one another. But I do not think that it is purely political in that it is a matter solely of practical institutional arrangements or simply a guarantee of freedom of religion. The fundamental issue (in my opinion) is, in what ways and to what extent does one's desire to relate to others require one to change one's conception of one's self? How is a particular religion to understand and express its own truth-claims, given that it knows, and wants to respect, religions that make opposing truth-claims? Well, this is my take on it, perhaps what I wrote will give others (hint hint RK and Wesley and perhaps others) a chance to say more and explore further what this article should and should not be about. -- SR
I see what you're saying. I think it's a great subject to talk about, although I'm not sure how it fits into an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure that pluralism is what's being discussed here, but it's not exactly ecumenism either. If it were called "theological pluralism" that might be clearer, but I'm not going to be the one to change the name at this point! On a personal note, my own religious faith makes some pretty exclusivistic claims, but it also recognizes people of other faiths have or can have considerable truth and can ultimately end up in the same place. But not all people believe that way. It is an interesting subject. --Eric
Eric, that is precisely it; this entry is indeed intended to discuss what you call "theological pluaralism". I called it "religious pluralism" only because that is the phrase I have seen used more often than any others. I think that you see the phrase as having a different meaning; in any case, the definition in the article can be worded so as to make this distinction clear. Obviously, on Wikipedia nothing is set in stone. The title of this entry can certauinbly be changed. However, given the articles I have read so far, I would argue that among those who discuss this subject, the current title is more well known. But other perspectives are still necessary to add in this discussion. RK
Not even having read the article, I'd say that unless we can supply a citation from a theologian or religion professor or two, using the exact phrase "religious pluralism," the article is going to have to be changed radically--renamed, deleted, etc. We are reporting about actual scholarship here, not doing it ourselves. --LMS
But, as I expected, the term is certainly used: Google search for "religious pluralism" --LMS
I looked at Google, and it looks like the term is used more often in the context of religious diversity, although sometimes in the way the term is being used here. Check out the listings for theological pluralism, and it's lot closer to what's being talked about here, I think. --Eric

Like many topics in religion and theology, this specific topic is certainly referred to by different names, by different authors. There is no one set name. I chose "religious pluralism" as the title of this entry only because it seems that more people who discuss this topic use the phrase rather than any other phrase. If in our reading and surveying we find that some other phrase is actually used more often, then we should certainly change the title of this article to that phrase. RK

No comments on the content here, just an explanation of what I did:

  • moved the page to a lower-case title (but not this talk page--too much trouble to do that, just changed the link). We'd write "religious pluralism," I guess, not "Religious Pluralism," so the lower-case title is better. See naming conventions.
  • bolded the title.
  • removed the bullets. Generally, in an encyclopedia, I think it's best to stick with full prose sentences. Bullets are a bit overused on Wikipedia, I think, just because they're so easy to use--not because they are necessary.

--Larry Sanger

Larry, I think you're wrong to do this because:

  • Bullets are a great form of organization
  • They make it easy to distinguish points;
  • They look cool.
  • Anyone can easilly follow the arguments; in paragraph form it is sometimes harder to do.
  • And did I mention that they look cool?
  • RK

I don't think they look cool nearly as often as some people seem to think they do. I think when overused (when used when plain old unbulleted sentences would do) they look amateurish, or as if we were writing ad copy, you know, of the sort that lists the features of the brand new truck you could buy. Sure, they can be useful, but I'm just saying we shouldn't overuse them; using them too much is tantamount to promoting a new standard for structuring written prose, and basically, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that. --LMS

Sorry, my humor fell flat.  :( I really don't care too much one way or the other. I just found it ironic that while you removed bullets and explained why, you then gave a list of your other changes in bullet form. So I just made up a lot of bullets in response; Its semantic humor. (What other kind of humor would you expect from me? Anti-Semantic? Hah! I kill me... RK

Eric writes "Isn't it not just theological attempts at reconciliation of some sort, but also political?"

Well, for some people that is true, I guess. But for the people whose works I have read, the primary motivation is ethical and theological. This article, as it currently stands, is not about ecumenism at all; it is about theological pluralism. While some people may have political reasons for such theologies, I have not yet come across their writings. If you have any ones to suggest, that would be much appreciated. RK

I would say that this secondary meaning of ecumenism, as stated by SR, is a part of religious pluralism, rather than a separate topic. Pluralism is used by many different people to cover a wide array of ideas. We probablu shouldn't be too strict in giving it a narrow definition. RK

This is just a question for my own clarification, and I apologize if it's off-topic discussion. But the third paragraph or so seems to draw a distinction between pluralism and the maximal form of pluralism. I think I understand what the maximal form of pluralism is: all religions are equally right. What would the other form of pluralism say? "All religions contain some truth, some contain more than others"? "Some religions are more true than others, but it's humanly impossible to know which is which"? Wesley

Yes, that is precisely what the non-maximal forms of pluralism say. RK

I have yet to run across any formulation of Christianity or any other religions that claims to have "all" truth, with no mystery or contradiction left unexplained in the greatest detail, so I don't really see what's so pluralistic about a less-than-maximal pluralism. Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it. Maybe a better explanation would benefit other readers as well. Thanks, Wesley

(A) There are many Protestant Christianity churches that claim to have all the truth, and that all other faiths are heretical, lies, or Satanic. In fact, many Protestant Christian groups hold that even other groups in their own faith (i.e. other Christian denominations) are "of the devil" or something similar. There are a number of essays on this at the excellent religious pluralism site, www.religioustolerance.org RK
(B) For Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, most adherents would agree that "All religions contain some truth, some contain more than others", but that is where their pluralism would end. The implications for Catholics is that some non-Catholics, and perhaps fewer non-Christiains, might be able to be saved. However, to the best of my knowledge neither of these churches goes further to say that "Some religions are more true than others, but it's humanly impossible to know which is which". If someone were to accept that position, one could not hold that their faith is the only certain way to salvation.
(C) Today, many theologically liberal Jews, Catholics, and Protestants hold to a formulation which might be stated like this - "Some religions are more true than others, but it's humanly impossible to know which is which. However, given everything I know, I believe that my particular faith is indeed the best and most accurate understanding of God's will; I will therefore affirm my that religion is actually true, yet hold that other faiths may contain enough truth to allow their followers to acheieve salvation nonetheless." RK
Thank you. I don't know about anyone else, but that's a very helpful explanation for me. --Wesley

Article says:

Religious liberals in these faiths no longer claim that their religion is complete and of absolute accuracy; rather the Jews teach that their faith is only the most complete and accurate revelation of God to humanity that we have; similarly, the Christians teach the same thing; the Unitarian-Universalists teach the same thing.

I'm going to remove Unitarian-Universalists from the above sentence. UUism doesn't teach its "the most complete and accurate revelation of God to humanity that we have" (quite a few UUs don't even believe in "God", and the origins of UUism are more in reason and personal experience than in revelation). OTOH, we still should discuss UU views somewhere here, since some form of religious pluralism is an essential component of UUism. The problem is that, unlikely most religions, UUism doesn't have any detailed official teachings -- basically all it officially says is "you are welcome to believe just about whatever you want, so long as you respect other people".

Also, I can think of some information we should cover. There was the case of the Belgian Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis, his conflicts with the Vatican, over his book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Basically, as I understand it, the conflict was over where the truth in religions other than Catholicism comes from -- the Vatican insisted any truth other religions have is derived from Christ, Dupuis was arguing that some religions might have truths independent of the truths of Christianity. I also recall reading a paper of his on theocentric vs. christocentric attitudes to religious pluralism (basic issue here is: is Jesus for everyone, or is Jesus only for Christians? do members of other religions relate to God directly and independently of Jesus, or is their relationship to God also mediated by Christ, like Christians, even though they may not realise it is?). This may also fit in with and explain that controversial Vatican declaration of a while back, that Catholicism is the only completely true religion, or something like that.

Also, the journal Sophia had an interesting issue on religious pluralism some time last year or the year before. I'll look at it next time I go to uni (might not be until March, though). The information it had on Henry Corbin's views on pluralism was particularly interesting.

Also, I recall somewhere reading some classification of different approaches to religious pluralism: exclusivism (my religion is true, all other religions are false), inclusivism (my religion is true, but other religions still contain some truth in them, just not as much as mine), and pluralism (my religion is only one of many equally valid paths to God). Has anyone else heard that terminology used? -- SJK

That's similar to the terminology my "Philosophy of World Religions" professor used; I think he called them "religious exclusivism", "religious pluralism", and "religious inclusivism", just to emphasize that we were using the terms with respect to religion. And of course we spent weeks defining what the terms meant and didn't mean. --Wesley

Okay, I found the paper, its at [1]. He talks about a number of different classifications have developed:

The various theological positions on the subject have been differently classified by theologians. One classification distinguishes four main opinions: 1) an ecclesiocentric universe and an exclusive Christology. 2) a Christocentric universe and an inclusive Christology; 3) a theocentric universe and a normative Christology: 4) a theocentric universe and a non-normative Christology. For the sake of simplicity other classifications reduce the spectrum of opinions to three main categories: ecclesiocentrism, Christo-centrism, and theocentrism; or, equivalently, exclusi-vism, inclusivism, and 'pluralism'.

He also discusses other possible positions, such as the 'Reign of God paradigm' and the 'pneumatocentric position'. Unfortunately, he doesn't give much in the way of references... If, as he suggests, at least some of the classification he gives is reasonably common in theology, we'd want to quote whoever actually came up with it, rather than Dupuis. -- SJK

Many times using a specialized vocabulary or classification system can be helpful. However, we would need to be careful to define the terms as we're using them, for the sake of clarity. --Wesley

I added a heading for the Bahai faith, but don't really have the time right now to write anything under that heading. I think that any comprehensive discussion of the way that various religions treat the subject of pluralism has to take into account the Bahai religion, since religious pluralism is formally built into its theology (perhaps it is even fair to say that it is one of the key components to its theology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulpatch (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 September 2002 (UTC)

Important: Outline of this Talk Page

Contributions to this talk page are ordered by subject matter, not strictly chronologically; some older contributions are archived. I propose that more "intelligent archiving" should be done to increase the readability of this Talk Page. --Robin.rueth 07:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitions

Definition of Religious Pluralism

Inevitably, discussions of concepts that are seen as near-synonyms or opposites of Religious Pluralism, such as Pluralism, Inclusivism and Tolerance and Relativism will also have to be discussed in this subsection; all other definition discussions should go to #Other Definitions and Distinctions.--Robin.rueth 07:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Older Discussion: Does RP imply a value judgement ?

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)

Religious Pluralism and Freedom of Religion

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)

New Discussion

‘’’ This is a discussion about whether (very roughly speaking) this article should rather be about the coexistence of different religions or about a view of religions that holds that all religions are equal’’’

After User:RK's recent edits, I see that we seem to have different ideas of what this article is supposed to be about: Is it about a certain world view (all religions are somehow equal) or about a state of affairs (religions live together (possibly with equal rights or on an equal footing)). If I'm not mistaken, Pluralism itself has rather the second meaning - cf. the article about it, but in a religious context, it also has a meaning akin to relativism.

I would call inclusivism what is now defined in the first paragraph as pluralism, whereas "the existence of peaceful relationships between adherents of different religions or religious denominations" is, imho, rather, well, peaceful coexistence; im not sure about the later point. the problem is just that there seem to be no clear definitions around, and even the definitions for tolerance and pluralism that are provided for in Wikipedia are rather fuzzy. There needs to be a lot of definition work done in the whole subject area.

At any rate, I think there needs to be an article both about Religious_pluralism as I define it, and Religious_pluralism as User:RK defines it, the question is just which article should be named how; I personally would plead for naming the article about pluralism Religious_diversity or Religious_pluralism and renaming the other to Inclusivism or Religious_relativism.

Thank you for bringing this up. This kind of dialogue is precisely the sort of thing that avoids flame wars. I will try o clarify my views:
I am trying very hard to say that religious pluralism is not relativism, nor is it mere "tolerance". When one has a worldview which encourages religious tolerance, one thinks "That fellow's religion is totally wrong, and mine is totally right, but they seem like decent folk, and we should live together in peace." In other words, merely tolerating another's religion does not mean that one sees any truth in it. In fact, one can live peacefully with people in a spirit of religious tolerance, yet believe that their entire faith is idoicy or madness!
In practice, as you correctly suspect, many people who claim to advocate religious pluralism somehow end up advocating religious relativism. But I am trying to draw a distinction between these two different ideas. Relativism is the stance of people who essentially are agnostic about their own faith. They make few or no claim about the correctness of their faith, or of someone else's faith.
In religious pluralism, one could say "Yes, my religion is true, and thus other religions are not totally true. Yet nonetheless, there are some truths in other religions, even if they do not have the entire truth." For example, Jews believe that their faith (Judaism) is true, and that Islam is not true. Yet at the same time Jews have always recognized that Islam teaches many things that Jews believe to be true. So even if Islam is not "totally" true, it certainly contains many truths, and that's worthwhile.
Similarly, Jews and Muslims view each of their respective faiths as true, and Christianity as not true. (The Christian view of the Trinity is a major breaking point.) Nonetheless, both Jews and Muslims see Christianity as containing many truths, even though they don't accept Christianity as totally true. And of course the reverse is true as well, as many Christians see Islam and Judaism as containing truths, even though they are not considered to be totally true. RK 20:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
You point out that "the problem is just that there seem to be no clear definitions around, and even the definitions for tolerance and pluralism that are provided for in Wikipedia are rather fuzzy. There needs to be a lot of definition work done in the whole subject area."
Well, I suppose the real problem lies outside of Wikipedia. Its not us poor editors who are having trouble defining this term. Rather, I have observed that most people who use terms like "religious pluralism" and "religious tolerance" and "religious relativism" sometimes use them interchangably, which is misleading and causes great confusion. And while some people do take care to use these terms consistently, very few people try to see what other people mean when they use these words. I've seen dialogue between in the same religion, both of whom use the term "religious pluralism", yet both of which have very different definitions of what this term means! RK 20:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think, still, the first thing for us to do would be to agree on clear definitions, so at least we among ourselves know what we're talking about. I think the concepts of "relativism", "pluralism", "diversity" and "tolerance" in themselves (without the qualification "religious") are quite clear, and I propose we should stick to their meanings; nevertheless, the Wikipedia articles in question still need some editing.
As to what you define as "religious pluralism": Look at the Inclusivism page; in my humble opinion, that's exactly what you are talking about, and I don't see the point of having two articles on the same subject (which means that your contributions are very valuable, but had perhaps better be moved there).--Robin.rueth 20:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence - and also I still have little time. My feeling about RP is that the article's name should NOT be changed - if we did, it would only be recreated one way or another. There are definitely several distinct meanings to RP however, and maybe we should look carefully at distinguishing them, and give over to greater details on ancillary articles. I like the two following RP definitions, and feel that they are both pertinent:
  • A condition/system in which two or more religions coexist.
  • A religious theory/system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle.
So the first of those definitions includes the mere fact of coexistence, as well as the explanation/institutionalisation/policies (and all consequences) of the coexisting religions, both within authority and by the people on the ground. This definition (IMO) also includes systems of devolution and autonomy for individual religions in preference to hegemonic religious imperialism in praxis and by doctrine, and also touches on consequential systems of power-sharing among a set of coexisting religions (sometimes as a "club" to the detriment of other religions).
The second definition explores the distinction of RP from Inclusivism and (for many but not all religions) entails a modern and radical shift of doctrinal position. This latter issue would include partial pluralism - a broad spectrum inclusivist approach - take e.g. some liberal christians who may accept that islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism and sikhism all have valid ultimate principles - but they are unlikely to accept the same for satanists or wiccans, whereas less liberal christians may accept only the ibrahimic religions. Within christianity - we have very narrow positions - where only a specific school or sub-school may have an 'entrance to heaven', so we can talk meaningfully about the intrareligious RP issues that the current/old article had. (20040302 18:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC))
Sounds good to me, and I'm pretty impressed by that intelligent sound of your writing - all these complicated and learned words :-) Some additions, still:
What March4 and myself have proposed as an outline would then rather apply to the first definition (and this article, imho, should also include the history of religious coexistence and the way that different religions deal with that situation, doctrinally and practically)
IMHO, the sencond article would then be about one of the possible reaction of religious communities to RP in the first sense. Due to my ignorance in these matters, I still don't see the difference between RP in the second sense and inclusivism. I think the second article requires, as a basis, a profound discussion of the notion of - call it what you like (the following expressions are meant to talks about the same thing):
  • what Religion actually is
  • different functions of religion that can be found in many or all religions
  • of differences on several levels of Truth (in ethics, teachings about the "supernatural" / transcendent / God, in the outlook on society, in the way that leads to salvation / happiness)
that cause most of the differences and, hence, disputes between different religions (I've made an attempt at this discussion in my first draft that reaped harsh and partly justified criticism from March4, still I think, there needs to be something about this in the article).
Unfortunately, I'm also quite taken up with private matters, but will be able to get back to work from mid December at the latest.

--Robin.rueth 20:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments, Robin.
Solely taking the Inclusivism article as read, my understanding of the distinction is to do with the relationship of others regarding some notion of religious truth:
Inclusivism:one set of beliefs is absolutely true, other sets of beliefs are at least partially true.
Pluralism:all beliefs are equally valid within a believer's particular context.
Though, I feel that the latter definition is probably far too limiting for a general discussion on RP - IMO something more like..
Pluralism:the validity of belief depends upon the context of each individual.

This thread is continued at the bottom of the talk page, under #Latest discussion about scope and aim of this article

Renaming the Article to Religious Diversity ?

Should the article not be renamed to Religious Diversity? In my opinion, diversity is a value-neutral term that just refers to a situation, i.e. to the coexistence of different stances (e.g. religions; note that the - IMO rather bad Diversity article gives a different definition), whereas pluralism refers to a positive attitude you take towards this diversity (see the definition of Pluralism), i.e. pluralism is the more basic term, and this article is not just about people thinking positively about situations of religious diversity, but about these situations and what can arise out of them.--Robin.rueth 21:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it should be renamed this. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. People discussing this topic use the phrase "religious pluralism", and thus our article does as well. We can't let our semantic preferences rewrite the way that other people actually speak. We're here to report, not create new social realities. RK

Other Definitions and Distinctions

This sections is about definitions of concepts other than ‘’religious pluralism’’ and subjects narrowly related to it (pluralism, inclusivism, relativism, tolerance); discussions about this should go to #Definition of Religious Pluralism

Distinction between Religious faiths and traditions

A distinction should be made between religious faiths and religious traditions. For example, I consider Unitarian Universalism to be a religious tradition because it does not require faith. This is an example of a non-dogmatic and non-creedal religion that does not teach absolute truth. Mention should also be made of the Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrianism. Squideshi 16:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting distinction, but I am not sure it is the right one. Faith is a personal thing, like belief. I think what you are talking about is an difference between tradition and teachings (or creed or dogma). For example, Islam has had a pretty constant, but in the Islamic Golden Age the tradition was one of tolerance, whereas the tradition at other times has been less tolerant. Similarly for Unitarian Universalism has no creed or dogma, but many members have faith (nearly 50% according to [[2]]. What defines UUs most is probably the liberal tradition. -- Chris Q 06:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that some Unitarian Universalists have faith; however, as you have indicated, not all do. Some Unitarian Universalists are Atheists. If faith is not a requirment, how can Unitarian Universalism be considered a religious faith? I would say that tolerance is what defines Unitarian Universalism. What other religion's membership includes Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Pagans? What Unitarian Universalism does have is a tradition; although, it may vary widely from congregation to congregation. Squideshi 15:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Aim and Outline of this article

New Outline For Rewrite - old version

Because of its length, this discussions has been archived by --Robin.rueth 07:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

New Outline for Rewrite - New version

This is a new overall outline for the article that was jointly developed by Robin.rueth and 20040302. We propose that this outline be implemented into the new article. This entails

  • copying parts of the old article into its right place in the new one
  • reworking sections of the article so they fit in
  • inserting text into so far orphaned sections
  • putting text that would now be too long into separete, linked articles, with a summary on the Religious_Pluralism page.
  • reviewing links with other articles (and perhaps the articles themselves; concretly: Religious_Toleration and Interface)

Quite obiously, any contribution is most welcome and greatly necessary.--Robin.rueth 20:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion leading to this outline can be found in the "New Outline for Rewrite - Old version"

  1. What is Religious Pluralism?
    1. (definition and bounds)
    2. Distinction from other, closely related, concepts, such as
      1. Religious tolerance,
      2. Authorities’ stances on the existence of (different) religions (what is the right concept for this idea?),
      3. Ecumenism,
      4. Interfaith dialogue.
      5. Religious_syncretism (Syncretism has a section on Syncretic Religions)
    3. Political and social relevance of Religious pluralism (here, only as a short introduction / teaser, the rest should follow in the Political section)
    4. Religious pluralism as a challenge for religions and spirituality (likewise, only as a teaser)
    5. Concepts relevant for Religious Pluralism (if it is sensible to define these concepts at such a high level, this subsection may be dropped) – this could be a section for discussing
      1. different possible stances of one religious community towards another (if these concepts make sense for many, or all, religions; otherwise they have to be discussed further down, in the section on individual religions), such as:
        1. Relativism
        2. Inclusivism
        3. Exclusivism  : thinking about it once again, this is perhaps best discussed in the introduction of the different religions section
      2. Particularism and Universalism
      3. The question of Truth
  2. Why do situations of Religious Pluralism often lead to conflict? (the following two subsections somehow compete with each other / shed light on the same issue from different angles; I don’t know how to solve this problem, though I would prefer to keep the first subsection and discard the second)
    1. Problems can be found in different areas:
      1. Problems connected with Particularism and Universalism, and a combination of both
      2. Problems connected with the question of Truth
        1. Clash of differing claims for absolute Truth (that is, to take a very simplistic example, if Muslims say that God is one and they think that Christians say that God is three, it will be hard for them to agree; likewise, if Christians say Christ has risen and Jews don’t believe in his resurrection…)
        2. Truth as doctrine vs Truth as enlightenment vs Truth as praxis (that is, different religions would claim truth to lay in different areas; arguably, common ground can be found more easily in matters of practical action that in matters of doctrine)
    2. There are different points of view on these conflicts, among them non-religious ones such as:
      1. philosophy of Enlightenment (Lumières) (this might also be treated under the question of Truth)
      2. Clash of Civilisations theory on how different religious communities are in conflict (this could perhaps be put under the Particularism heading)
  3. Religions on Religious Pluralism: Doctrinal stances and Practical reactions of different religions
    1. Religious community / Religion X (the following subsubsections need not necessarily be in that order for all religions if it proves inconvenient, however, it would be nice for reasons of clarity and ease of comparison to have the same framework followed everywhere)
      1. Link to a detailed article of religious pluralism for X - eg Jewish RP
      2. Basic introduction of RP in X
      3. Historical development: Situations where X was confronted with X
      4. Doctrinal stance on RP in X
      5. Practical Reaction to RP in X
      6. Pluralism within the community X
      7. Anything in X considered pertinent to RP by X-members
    2. Religion Y
    3. Religion Z
  4. The History and Geography of Religious Pluralism: Situations of religious pluralism in different areas and epochs and the reactions of different religious communities (this cross-cuts with the preceding section, of course, but I think it can hardly be helped), for example
    1. religious pluralism in India,
    2. coexistence between Christians and Jews in Europe,
    3. coexistence between Muslims, Jews and Christians in Muslim-dominated countries
  5. Solutions proposed to the challenge of Religious Pluralism, for example
    1. Proselytism (This is seen as a solution by many: If members of Religion X are so good at proselytizing that everyone decides to take up Religion X, there will be no more Religious Pluralism)
    2. Syncretism
    3. Interfaith co-operation and dialogue, different approaches:
      1. Francis of Assisi
      2. Hans Küng
      3. The Assisi Peace meetings

Tasks going beyond this page

This is an attempt to identify pages that contain material on subjects that are to be treated also on this page. So

  • content from these pages could be integrated into this page; this does not mean that we want to merge all these pages into one but that useful material from these pages could be used on this page , for instance to illustrate a point (such as the recently featured article French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools).
  • these pages should be linked to from this page.
  • definitions on these pages could be used here; definitions must be checked with those of this page for consistency.

The following pages have been identified so far:

These pages should of course be sorted into the different sections of the Religious Pluralism article

If you wanted to merge these articles together, I think they they should be located at Pluralism, not Religious pluralism. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for this remark, I have clarified my above contribution accordingly --Robin.rueth 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've started editing Pluralism as a sort of conceptual groundwork for this article. I think most of the above articles have to be gone through and edited.--Robin.rueth 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Help With Open Source Religion Page

Hello,

I am requesting some help with another Wikipedia page. Currently, the Open Source Religion page is being closely edited by primarily a single individual. A number of religions are claiming to be open source or are exploring aspects of open source collaboration as found within the open source computing community. However, only one religion is being represented in the article on this page, and this without any references to sources such as peer-reviewed journals.

This is the page where your input would be appreciated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion

My personal opinion is that this page needs to be either substantially rewritten or removed. However, even tiny steps in revision are being halted since the page is so obscure that currently I am the only one defending expanding the religions that are represented there. I would appreciate the assistance of anyone who can make coolheaded arguments about respecting the right of other religions who see themselves as open source to be factually represented in this article and sticking to Wikipedia policies.

Thank you for any help or third opinions you can give to our discussion.

Kind regards,

Eriostemon 01:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Christianity

Disputed Christian views

What is the POV complaint, that caused the disputed notice to be posted in the "Christianity" section? What should we be doing, to resolve the dispute? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See my above notice under "Classical Christian Views". Concretely, the first paragraph of "Classical Christian Views" is a bit simplistic, rather on the evangelical side (may still be o.k., though), but the last sentence, "All non-christians are specifically pointed out as destined for damnation" is way beyond acceptability. I think that in the light of the Bible, this cannot be maintained, passages like the Last Judgement in Matthew 25 openly contradict it.

The rest of the section, in my opinion, talks more about relativism than what I understand to be pluralism (see the introduction that I rewrote and the concepts section that I added), so mixing up these concepts just makes the whole paragraph confused. Finally, in the last paragraph ("To these Christians"), I don't really get the point. Most non-Christians who have some sympathy for Christianity would rather acknowledge some of the beliefs of Christianity - such as the value of charity... - but find the sacraments rather bizarre. This even goes for Christian Calvinists and, to a lesser degree, for other protestants, who do not believe in transsubstantiation, so this whole paragraph is pointless even for them. The "Modern Christian views" section suffers from a lot of confusion as well. Vatican II with "Nostra Aetate" is missing (I might add it one day). The idea that "Most Christians, including most conservative Protestants, reject the idea of the New Testament as an extended covenant, and retain the classical Christian view as described above" cannot be true, because the conservative Protestants are, numerically speaking, a minority within Christianity whereas Catholicism, which is the majority church within Christianity, officialy adhers to a more tolerant view of things. Generally, much of the article needs reworking as I specified it in my "Concepts" entry above. --Robin.rueth 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that our recent discussions are helping to clear this up. Your concerns are valid, and the sections on Christianity may need to be rewritten to address your points. The ideas I was adding in this article were meant to be about pluralism, not relativism. Indeed, near the top of this article is a critique of relativism (the idea that all religions are equally true, and equally false.) Relativism is widely (and I believe correctly) understood to be logically incoherent, because it forces one to violate the law of non-contradiction (God is real, and God is not real. The Trinity is real, and the Trinity is not real. There is an eternal soul, and there is not an eternal soul, etc.) RK 14:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian Denominations

I am skeptical of the value of trying to lump all Christian denominations together into one classification called Christianity. There is such a wide variation of belief between denominations. Even since the early history of the church there have been major disagreements regarding issues, such as the nature of Christ. Even within Christianity, some that believe that Jesus was not divine. Of course, there will be those that say these aren't Christians; but who decides? Roman Catholic dogma has, of course, dominated Christian belief for centuries, and most Protestant denominations owe considerably to this; but if you go further back, almost every council that was held was the result of some major theological disagreement. Squideshi 15:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I can sympathise with this, though I expect that the same would apply to most religions. I think that the best thing is to do as the current entry on Jewish views, give the main beliefs of larger denominations and then refer to a separate article, as the Jewish entry does with Jewish views of religious pluralism -- Chris Q 14:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I basically agree with what you have said. Nevertheless, for reasons of clarity, I think, as Chris Q said, there must be one main entry on Christianity, because despite all disagreements, there is still a core of Christianity and an aspiration for unity. Since the core of Christianity is the Bible, which is not disputed by any Christians that I know of, I would like discussion of Christian views of religious pluralism to begin with the Bible, and then there could be a historical account on what theologians of the different denominations had to say. --Robin.rueth 17:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sola Scriptura is one of the Five Solas that only emerged during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century and is not accepted in many denominations with episcopalian church governance. For example, in the Roman Catholic denomination, tradition, based on the doctrine of apostolic succession, is as important, if not more important, than the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest organizational body of Christians in the world. It should also be noted that there is no such thing as the Bible. The History of the English Bible article shows that there are many different versions, with wide varation between them. Some denominations also accept deuterocanonical books. Squideshi 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I cannot agree with you on three points:
  • I agree with you that not all Christians are guided in their actions and even in their thoughts on what the Bible has to say, but I would argue that in most cases, at least theologists who call themselves Christians would take their understanding the Bible as one of the pillars of their reasoning. Concretely, even if the Roman Catholic Church does not adher to the Sola Scriptura Principle, it still considers, if I remember rightly, the Bible as the Norma normans, the norm-giving guideline, whereas tradition is seen as Norma normata, a secondary guideline which has to conform to what is in the Bible. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
  • Even if Christians of the Reformation do not accept deuterocanonical books (to put it from a Catholic perspective - Protestants would call them apocryphal), this is only a rather small part of the content of the Old Testament and does not touch the New Testament, which is arguably more important for Christian. Moreover, I do not know if these deuterocanonical books have anything to say on Religious pluralism, and at any rate, there is enough common text in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.
  • If there were different versions of the English Bible, this is only of marginal importance for our issue, because any self-respecting theologian would resort to the Greek and Hebrew originals, which show rather little variations between the different manuscripts (leaving aside the fact that for a long time, in Catholic Church, the Latin Vulgata was also considered as an inspired text and thus as a valid source).
Why I would like to have this Biblical section in is because I believe that most theological disputes on religious pluralism in a Christian context were actually based on different interpretations - or perhaps translations - of the Bible, which can actually be seen as equivocal on many points. So putting a Biblical basis, or stating that the Bible can be seen as equivocal and giving some examples, would allow us to give a foundation to all the other arguments and debates that occured in the different historical epochs and denominations.--Robin.rueth 14:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
First, it should be noted that Catholic is not synonymous with Roman Catholic. Catholic Answers explains the Roman Catholic viewpoint in Scripture and Tradition. Here is a quote:
"The first Christians 'devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching' (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative."
In the Roman Catholic view, the Bible supplements tradition; however, tradition can stand alone without the Bible--not the other way around. There are also significant disagreements between Christian denominations regarding canonization. Not all Christian denominations accept the same ecumenical councils, resulting in not only minor differences in translation but also in entirely different Bible canons. Squideshi 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Classical Christian views - POV dispute

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)

I've added this tag ({{NPOV-section}}) because I agree with User:Mkmcconn and User:Pollinator that this section reflects a very negative and badly informed view of Christianism, according to which it is downright hostile to other religions. There have certainly been tendencies in this direction, such as many very bad instances of Christian Anti-semitism, but that's definitely not the whole story and, in my opinion, rather a - sad and frequent - deviation than the essence of Christianism such as it is understood by the Bible. Reference to some Biblical passages would certainly help to clarify this section, and all claims on Christian teachings that are not sympathetic to Christianism should be based on quotes rather than just vaguely referring to "a number of Christianity articles" --Robin.rueth 18:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole section on Christianity needs to be rewritten, (see top of page) because we can't have a proliferation of sections on every type of Christian view that exists. I am in complete agreement that the "Classical Christian Views" section is majorly tainted. I will begin researching as soon as my homework level decreases and continue working on this interesting page. However, I wish to point out that any article on Religious Pluralism will always be relativistially tainted because the basis of religious pluralism is similar to that of relativism: that each person has a right ability, and freedom to choose their own opinion of truth. Much of Christian theology teaches that our will is bound to only be able to choose religions/worldviews other than Christianity. It is also worth pointing out that Christians believe they cannot claim to know the fullness of the Christian religion, because it is based on God's revelation of himself to them, and because they profess they don't have a full view of the fullness of reality, they have no right to say anyone is damned. Cormallen 14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions concerning the Christian Trinity Doctrine

(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)

Little-j says:Think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3in one. Like a plait of hair-3 seperate parts, but one plait. And as for the chosen people going thru hard times-before the Isralites were slaves in egypt, no one else knew about God- after he rescued them-EVERYONE did. Little-j

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.

Different Religions that accept other faiths

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.

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, but with limited knowledge. I look forward to seeing your expanded entry -- Chris Q 07:57, 28 Jun 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)

Latest discussion about scope and aim of this article

This is the continuation of the #Definitions thread; it has been moved here because of its recency, but it might as well go back to where it came from - never mind...--Robin.rueth 21:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Robin Rueth writes "I think, still, the first thing for us to do would be to agree on clear definitions, so at least we among ourselves know what we're talking about. I think the concepts of "relativism", "pluralism", "diversity" and "tolerance" in themselves (without the qualification "religious") are quite clear, and I propose we should stick to their meanings; nevertheless, the Wikipedia articles in question still need some editing."

I disagree; the definitions of these words in of themselves are not clear. That's precisely why Wikipedia editors are discussing the issue. But more important is the fact that outside of Wikipedia writers on religious topics often use these words in ways which show great confusion. Our articles can reflect the fact that these terms are not used consistently. RK 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Robin Rueth writes "As to what you define as "religious pluralism": Look at the Inclusivism page; in my humble opinion, that's exactly what you are talking about, and I don't see the point of having two articles on the same subject (which means that your contributions are very valuable, but had perhaps better be moved there)."

Inclusivism, as many people outside of Wikipedia use the word, usually has little to do with pluralism, as discussed in this article. When I see writings on this topic outside of Wikipedia, the phrase "pluralism" is used far more often. From what I have seen, people more often use the word "inclusivism" as a synonym for "tolerance", and "religious tolerance" is a very different idea than "religious pluralism." However, I may be wrong. Are there many writers who write about the ideas in our article, and use the phrase "inclusivism"? If so, then we can add that to this article, saying something like "Some writers use the term inclusivism in the same way that others use the phrase pluralism. RK

20040302 writes: "There are definitely several distinct meanings to RP however, and maybe we should look carefully at distinguishing them, and give over to greater details on ancillary articles. I like the two following RP definitions, and feel that they are both pertinent:

  • A condition/system in which two or more religions coexist.
  • A religious theory/system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle.
I don't understand the first definition. Even in the 1930s Nazi Germany contained two or more religions that coexisted at the same time. In the 1930s this was so without any genocide, yet who could possibly describe that society as having "religious pluralism" ? The Germans didn't even have mere religious tolerance, or inclusivism. RK
Do you have any sources for writers who use the phrase "religious pluralism" in the sense of your first definition? I have not seen this useage.
As for your second definition, the way that it is phrased is unclear to me. Later on you clarify that "This latter issue would include partial pluralism - a broad spectrum inclusivist approach - take e.g. some liberal christians who may accept that islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism and sikhism all have valid ultimate principles - but they are unlikely to accept the same for satanists or wiccans, whereas less liberal christians may accept only the ibrahimic religions. Within christianity - we have very narrow positions..." This I understand, and is fine. However, it doesn't seem to contradict the opening that I recently made to this article. It seems to be a more wordy way to offer the same information.
I think the problem is that we are trying to offer a basic definition and clarification, all in one or two sentences, but that isn't possible or desirable. That's why I moved up the section in the article on clarifying what adherents of religious pluralism mean by this term, why the same term can be used for a variety of ideas, and most importantly, what this term does not mean. RK 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your intelligent remarks, I shall answer as soon as I'll have time. The problem is that I'm somehow without expert knowledge of what people say in literature...--Robin.rueth 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is what Google can actually be useful for! Past discussions on Wikipedia centered on "What should be the title for the article on XYZ", and we used google searches to find out how these terms were being used, and which terms were most popular for a given subject. To be sure, these never give totally clear answers, as different people will use different terms for the same idea (or worse, the same term for different ideas!) but such searches often show a consensus of use. I just did a Google search on the following terms, and here are the "Hit" results.
Religious inclusivism - 191 hits
Religious pluralism - 397,000 hits
Religious tolerance - 1,500,000 hits
+"religious tolerance" +"religious pluralism" - 25,000 hits
The articles for "religious tolerance" were all over the place. Some discussed ideas like those in this article, but most seem to be about the idea of politely and civily tolerating other faiths, without finding any "truths" within them. What was interesting was the combination of two terms, which showed many writers distinguished between the two as different ideas. RK 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Others are also seeing the same linguistic confusion that we see. The "ReligiousTolerance.Org" website tries to avoid using the term "religious pluralism". Their website says
Unfortunately, the term "Religious pluralism" is ambiguous. It is sometimes used as a synonym for "religious diversity" to refer to the fact that many countries have a followers of many religions within their borders. It is sometimes difficult to tell from a written document or speech which definition the author or speaker is using.
REACTING TO RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY: RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVISM, PLURALISM, & INCLUSIVISM
I am thinking that this article, as such, should describe a moderate range of views, and note that anything within this range of views is known as "religious pluralism". We can also note that some people use the term "religious inclusivism" as a synonym for rel. plur. We can also note the confusion caused by the fact that some people use this term interchangably with religious toleration, religious freedom, religious syncretism and religious relativism, yet direct readers to those specific articles for more information. Now I am wondering how to describe the range of religious pluralist views within this article?! RK 20:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Using ReligiousTolerance.Org classification system

It is interesting to read see that the |Religious Tolerance site, on the page you quoted, gives religious inclusivism, exclusivism and pluralism as three reactions to religious diversity. So religious diversity is their basic concept, in a way, which describes a state of affairs ("A condition/system in which two or more religions coexist", as March4 wrote) to which you can react in different ways and which you can judge in different ways. So, imho, we must split the present Religious pluralism article into - at least - two articles, one of them being an ancillary document to the other.

  1. There should be one article about the state of affairs that ReligiousTolerance.org describes as "Religious diversity", and why should we not call it Religious Diversity? A first step towards an outline for this article could be the one myself and March4 designed for this one (see #Aim and Outline of this article. This would be a very comprehensive, not to say encyclopedic article, which might spawn lots of sub-articles.
I disagree, we already have an article on religion. See my comment below for more on this point. RK
  1. This article should then contain a - very important - section about "Possible Reactions to religious diversity"; this would be rather at the beginning of the article, in what is Section 1 of my proposed outline (thinking about it once again, that outline we proposed is not so brilliant after all; I'll give it a second thought, and everybody is invited to do likewise).
How can we discuss the reactions to "religious diversity" before describing what "religious diversity" is? In any case, the ReligiousTolerance.Org website merely defines "religious diversity" as the existence of multiple faiths. We already have many articles on the responses to religious faiths. Such responses include the creation of new faiths, propaganda against those in other faiths, heresy hunts, persecution, ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, etc. RK
Our article on Religion already explains in great detail that in response to different views of divinity, many different faiths have developed, and then links to specific articles on those faiths. (e.g. Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc.) Within those major articles we already do have sections on the responses of these faiths to other faiths. As such, I am concerned that we are re-inventing the wheel, and duplicating already extant work. Of course, the topics you mention are important, and I agree with you that we should work on this. Instead of making new articles, perhaps we should work at standardizing the treatment of these subjects within the religion articles we already have. RK
    1. In this section, one subsection could be about guidelines for political action, i.e. the stance that an authority takes on religious diversity. Accordingly, there can be
      1. persecution / intolerance
      2. tolerance and religious freedom
      3. a State religion (which can or cannot imply tolerance and religious freedom for diverging religious convictions, see the contrary examples of, say Saudi Arabia and England with its Established church).
      4. Pluralism in the area of religions, i.e. the authorities not only tolerate, but actively endorse, religious diversity and do not take sides with any one religion. You can see that, imho, this is where pluralism is at home; it is not necessarily
      5. Laicism (in the French meaning): the state declares itself as non-religious, which may amout to saying that the religion of the state is indifference to religion. (I'm a bit polemical there)
    2. The next subsection is the tricky one - it's about how religions judge each other. This would be about
      1. Exclusivism
      2. Inclusivism
      3. Relativism
      4. Religious Pluralism as a range of views on other religions (however, this concept is very fuzzy, and I think it has to be analyzed in closer detail)
    3. I think the tricky thing in the last subsection is that whatever we said about these -isms was related to the question of truth ("truth can be found in all / only one religion" "absolute truth can be found there" etc.), and we have not discussed yet what we understand by truth in religion
I think that the question of truth is the easy part to deal with, at least in broad outline. For instance, Jews say that it is true that one god exists, known as God, and that the biblical patriarch Abraham was a prophet carrying a message to humanity from this God. Christians and Muslims agree. This is a claim as to some divine being that actually exists, and a claim about a prophet. All three religions agree that both claims are "true". Second example: Most Christians say that this one God has three separate persons within it, each sharing the same substance, and this set is counted as one, and is known as the Trinity. This claim is rejected by Muslims and Jews. Only one of these three religions accepts this claim as "true". So all three religions agree that God exists, and that Abraham was a prophet (all agree that these claims are true), yet they disagree about the trinity (one group holds that it is true, the others hold that it is false.) This is a perfect example of religious pluralism. Each group holds that its faith is true (Jews believe in Judaism, Christians believe in Christianity, and Muslims believe in Islam), yet at the same time each recognizes that the other faiths are not totally false, and indeed each religion recognizes that the others contain important truths. 16:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The harder part to outline is that many religious speakers use terms loosely. In one sentence they will attack another religion as "false" and in another sentence they will admit that there are some truths in that other religion!
    1. Perhaps it is easier to say that religions have various functions (This is an idea I take over from Henri Bergson's book "Les deux sources de la morale et la religion") - although, perhaps, not all religions have all functions that are possible - and adherents of one religion may judge those of others according to how (well) perform these functions, i.e. people could say
      1. "Religion X will not get you to heaven" (it does not perform its individual function for salvation / happiness) or
      2. "Religion Y teaches terrorism instead of charity" (it has bad ethics) or
      3. "Religion Z teaches that there are three Gods instead of one" (its theology is bad).
      The other functions, lest I forget them, are
      1. a social function (i.e. many religions give their adherents an identity, which is either open or closed, i.e. which functions by delimitation from non-adherents/non-believers - this distinction may still be quite superficial), which can lead to rejecting another religion just because it is different, its members are not part of "our" group.
      2. a function of worship, i.e. it makes you get in touch with the divine; disputes about the right way of worship are also endless.
    2. Then, there could be a last subsection about reactions of religious communities to Religious diversity, i.e. what influence of other religions do they allow for?
      1. Dialogue in practical matters (which does not necessarily modify your religion as such) vs. Confrontation
      2. Re-interpretation of one's own tradition: The "base" / heritage / tradition of a religion is not changed (e.g. Christians do not modify their Bible) , but it is interpreted in the light of the experience of the encounter; this may even lead to one's own faith becoming more deeply rooted. (for example you may see the Bible in a different light after you've seen Muslims' prayers or their attention for the Coran...)
      3. Syncretism, i.e. contact with another religion modifies the base of one's own religion.
        The basic assumption behind this is that the identity of any religious group is shaped in a hermeneutic dialogue between a “base” - what you could call tradition (i.e. all the religious and cultural heritage that constitutes your religion, including the divine revelations handed down through the times ) - and the present situation: Tradition can be re-interpreted in the light of the present situation, but likewise, you will also see the present in the light of your tradition and act in it likewise. Now, the presence of other religions enters into your present, and can shed a new light onto your traditions.
Practically speaking, I would propose we should name the first / overall article “religious diversity” (because that’s what the Religious Tolerance page calls it); I don’t know if there can be an overall article on the second subject.
I’ll try to integrate this into the proposal for my old outline, if there is any visible interest in these proposals of mine.--Robin.rueth 22:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This idea of religions having functions is a good one, and one that I have seen in writings of Chrisitians, Jews and a few Muslims and others engaged in inter-faith dialogue. This article should definately include these ideas. RK 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this term meaningful for an entire article?

Robin Rueth writes "There should be one article about the state of affairs that ReligiousTolerance.org describes as "Religious diversity", and why should we not call it Religious Diversity?

We don't need an entire encyclopedia article on the phrase "religious diversity". The term is merely being use to note that more than one religion exists. As I read through the ReligiousTolerance.Org articles, they say that in most countries we can find more than one religious faith. Umm, ok. But there isn't a new idea; people have always known that many religions existed! That's why we already have the article on Religion and the many related articles. It is that main Religion article which should have links to Religious Tolerance, Religious intolerance (aka exclusivism), Religious Pluralism, Relativism, and Syncretism.

I'm worried that we are getting into original research here. I think we should see how people use the term "Religious pluralism", and describe their uses of this term in an NPOV way. As you point out, people use this term in different ways. As such, we cannot always fully clarify the subject. We can only point out the linguistic confusion. (e.g. Father Smith uses the phrase "religious pluralism" in the same way that Reverend Johnson uses the phrase "religious inclusivism". RK 16:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Diversity can be modelled by the Evolution of a State Space

Josiah Willard Gibbs, possibly the greatest American scientist, was a founder of statistical mechanics. His formulation of this science (which explains, for example, the thermodynamic behavior of gases) is based on the concept of a state space. The state is dependent on some mechanical laws (like Newton's laws, but the exact formulation is immaterial); Gibbs noted the tendency of the state space to become filamentous (to branch out, like the branches of a tree from a tree trunk). I find this tendency to be exactly analogous to the concept of diversity, say in the evolution of one species from another. What I am getting at, is that 'diversity is unstoppable'. You will see this phenomenon in the segmentation of a business market, or in the evolution of political positions of the political parties, or in the evolution of species, or in the growth of ideas (as in the propositions of a belief system), one from the other, over time.

For example, if you view the responses of species to an external stress, then the species will adapt or not. If a species does not adapt, it will succumb (as almost all species on the earth have) and another species will take its place. My point is that one branch may flourish, and another may wither. Not all branches may be able to co-exist simultaneously (the condition of plurality) but they certainly can or could have existed at one time or another (the condition of diversity). --Ancheta Wis 02:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know in how far this applies specifically to Religious Diversity; it would be a valuable addition to the Diversity article at any rate. It might go into a section explaining why there is religious diversity. --Robin.rueth 08:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
What is interesting about this thought, anyway, is the concept of adaption; imho, religious communities also find themselves in a constantly changing world, and they have to ask themselves in how far they want to adapt the interpretation of their traditions to it or in how far they want to adapt the world to their ideals, or perhaps just close themselves to the world and refuse to communicate / to be corrupted. There may be diverse opinions within a religious community, which may lead to tensions and, in turn, to schisms, i.e. diversification, if you want --Robin.rueth 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
This idea represents original research, and can not be included in Wikipedia articles. In any case, real-world Christians and Jews never use physics and mathematics terms like these to analyze or justify religious pluralism, religious tolerance, etc. If, someday, some matematician writes an article on this topic, we could then write an article on that mathematician's work. But that potential, future article wouldn't be on religious pluralism. Rather, it would be on the way that some mathematician decided to study and model religious pluralism. RK 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits: From one definition to many definitions

I feel greatly challenged, once again, by your last additions to the RP page. They are intelligent, but somehow I can't agree, so I'll have to find a constructive answer when I'll have time.--Robin.rueth 20:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with my previous edits was that I defined the phrase "religious pluralism" too narrowly. As the week went by my own editing began to grate on me. Your discussion has convinced me that my recent rewrite of the beginning was wrong, and needed to be replaced with something more flexible. Thus, my edit today is only the beginning of a process to fix the problems created by my own overly narrow definition. I intend nothing permanent or fixed by it, and welcome your comments and edits. RK 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose my main problem in this area is that I have many intuitions, but little exact knowledge, so I've borrowed some books from the library to read into the subject a bit.

Pluralism as an attitude in comparison of religions

From what I've seen so far, the concept of Religious Pluralism as it is used today (and as you understand it, i.e. as an attitude towards different religions which avoids privileging any of them without ending up with a relativistic position) was created by John Hick, but from the beginning, it has been hard for proponents of pluralism not to end up taking sides with either relativism or inclusivism.
added later in the evening) All of these terms (pluralism, inclusivism, exclusivism and perhaps also relativism) can be defined as different possible attitudes to take when one compares religions (and some Perry Schmidt-Leukel has tried to show that these, together with atheism are the only positions one can take in comparing religions; of course, this view is contested - Christian Danz, p. 84). Now, the fact of comparing leads to many interesting questions:
  • why would anybody want to compare religions?
  • what exactly do you compare?
  • how do you compare, what is your tertium comparationis?
If I knew more about logic and reasoning, I could formulate these questions more precisely, but they seem to show to me that the foundation of the concepts like inclusivism, exclusivism etc. is problematic as long as you don't know what you actually use then for

Religious pluralism in analogy to Pluralism in sociology

Pluralism in the social sciences and Religious Pluralism

Pluralism in the social sciences implies conflict and dialogue between groups with different ínterests and identities which, ideally, leads to consensus or compromise, i.e. a sort of (temporary) unity is created out of the diversity of points of view (and be it only that for today, Group X gets its way, but Groups Y and Z accept it out of loyalty for the rules of pluralism or because they hope to get their way tomorrow), without anyone having to give up their own point of view.
By contrast, the concept of Religious Pluralism, as you - and probably most people - understand it, does not necessarily imply dialogue between the different religious communities; it is just a way of comparing the quality / truth / you name it... of different religions.

Pluralism as unity in diversity

If we wanted to transfer the concept of Pluralism to the religious domain, it would imply that religions get together to reach some kind of unity without syncretism (which would mean partially exchanging one's own practices and beliefs for those of the others). This could mean:
Religious Pluralism as low-tension coexistence of religions
Religious Pluralism as coexistence in society: Different religions communities live together in a society (So far, this is just religious diversity; what comes now is specific to RP). They enjoy equal rights and conflicts are resolved peacefully by some kind of interfaith dialogue on practical matters. This dialogue takes place within a neutral framework (e.g. a state) which does not a priori take sides with any one religion; this also implies there are no privileges for any one religion.
Religious Pluralism as mutual interest for religious positions

Religious Pluralism as exchange on religious matters: The presence of other religions with divergent practices and beliefs makes religious communities recognize that their practices and beliefs, while having their origin in an experience of the divine,

  1. may have been corrupted by human fallibilty (e.g. by social constraints or mechanical reproduction in the tradition, in which the deeper understanding got lost - as Henri Bergson would put it) and no longer completely conform to that experience of the divine. In this case, dialogue with other religions can be used as a starting point for a reflection of one's own tradition which may lead to a deeper understanding of the Divine as it shows itself in one's own tradition. (This is the principle according to which the Community of Sant'Egidio, which I belong to, has been practising inter-religious dialogue for 19 years.)
  2. may be based on incomplete experience, other communities having made other experience. This means that dialogue with other communities with deep understanding of their experience can lead to a greater completeness of one's own practices. I once heard that Schleiermacher saw things that way; I think he even thought of a fusion of all religions. We're not far from syncretism here, but it's not a "superficial supermarket" syncretism as long as my community manages to adapt others' practices to its own needs and give them a deep meaning in the context of its own tradition. This is seen as a possible way in Christian Ecumenism - some people (was it John Paul II, Andrea Riccardi has said it anyway) say the Church should breathe with both lungs, the Orthodox one and the Catholic one (no idea what becomes of the Protestants...).
In either case RP as exchange on religious matters is a dialectical process in which both sides, after the confrontation with the other, have reached a higher level of understanding. (Too bad I've never read any Hegel.)

Original research?

I know what you're going to tell me now: This is original research. Yes, but only as long as I don't find anyone who has had these ideas before, and in some cases, I have found them. Most everything I have been doing on the RP talk page has served to provide a mental framework for contents that are yet to come, i.e. there are different positions that I can conceive of, and we can fit them into this framework (March4 keeps criticizing me for wanting to build up "towering edifices". He's right, my main aspiration here is to somehow get things into a system.) So maybe the structure is original, but it's content has been there elsewhere.--Robin.rueth 17:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - with some revisions --Robin.rueth 20:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hare Krishna views

  • All religions ultimately aim towards devotional service to God, which can be revived through the chanting of His holy names.
  • God has many names. According to the Vedic tradition, the Hare Krishna mantra contains the most potent names of God.
  • However, all names of God that come from the revealed scriptures are endowed with the potency of God, therefore, one can chant Jehovah, Krishna, Yahweh or Allah.
  • Chanting the names of a pure, self-realised soul is also a way of reaching God. Lord Buddha and Lord Christ are examples of such self-realised souls. By chanting their names, one can receive their mercy in order to understand God.
(removed as no source given & Krishna would not have referred to Buddha or Christ, as He pre-dates them -- Chris Q 15:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

as of 2:51 am, December 7th, 2005

A very influential philosopher these days, even though he is currently dead, is Leo Strauss. I mention him because he spoke of scholarship as participating in an ongoing conversation. I have read much of the 'talk' appended to the 'religious pluralism' article and i wonder what can be done to save it.

Firstly, I think the initial problem is to define what we intend 'religious pluralism' to mean. This observations has already been made and is archived. Another key point is that there are at least two major ways of defining it: one, descriptively, and two, prescriptively. Again, much of the archived discussion reflects this distinction. Since this is for the sake of an encyclopedia, it is best to begin with and not lose sight of the descriptive. By descriptive I mean simply that many religions exist in a single place, namely, this world, the globe of globality, globalism, globalization. It is due to globalization that religious pluralism became an issue. Had all the major religions mainly kept to themselves, religious pluralism would not be an issue. The second aspect of 'religious pluralism,' that is, the presciptive arises in response to religious pluralism becoming an issue. Thus, all the talk of tolerance and dialogue between religions which is meant to great lasting fuzzy feelings between groups which had seen (and largely still do see) themselves as rivals. The point though is that these reactions to the realization of religious pluralism's existence are religious responses to religious pluralism: secularism is another, just as is anti-religious atheism is as well. Furthermore, the rise of religious fundamentalism is in part a response to this same realization. And so, it is in this sense that I think that the 'religious pluralism' page should focus on an objective, historical account of how everybody (or at least, everybody who is not under a proverbial rock) the world over is aware that other religions exist. This means going back at least as far back as the so-called father of history, Herodotus, who observed and retold what he saw as the religion of ancient Greece's neighbours. Only once the story of comparative religion is retold can one then go on to say what is being done about it today.

P.S. About Krishna.

The historicity of Krishna, not to mention Buddha and Jesus, are not strait-forward, nor simple matters. Obviously, the accounts we have of Krishna make no mention of Jesus, nor any direct ones of Buddha. The textual basis of his tradition (mainly but far from exclusively the Bhaggavad-Gita) is much later that the Vedas, and so any critical historian will remind us that Krishna is being re-back into the Vedic tradition, just as the early Christians re-read the so-called Old Testament via a newly emergent filter, i.e., a Christian one. The Bhaggavad-Gita does state that all gods are really only Krishna in the end. This may enable a certain physical tolerance of other gods and their worshippers, but is it really intellectual tolerant? Is it not intolerant in so far as it is patronizing? The devotee of Krishna claiming that only he or she and his or her community knowing god's true form, i.e., Krishna.

Again this points to how old an issue 'religious pluralism' is: we can read it in the Bhaggavad-Gita (and in that regard, when the Torah instruct 'thou shall have no other god but me,' is this not an indirect way of 'there are other gods, but only i am the real thing'?)... Furthermore, religious intolerance is and has been just as much a part of religious pluralism as religious tolerance, or non- or anti- religious tolerance and intolerance.

--Mattattyau, 2:51 am, December 7th, 2005.

What do these symbols mean?

can anyone tell me waht religions are associated with some of Template:User religious pluralism these symbolson the religious pluralist userbox? specifically the center, bottom center, and bottom right? Gatherton 00:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking on the articles on List of symbols. I found one there but the other 2 ??? -Ancheta Wis 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gatherton- The Cross pattée (centre) is rather oddly placed - referring possibly to the Knights templar - which no longer exists, so maybe represents gnostic Christians - most of which do not exist. Ayyavazhi (bottom centre) is a small (on the world stage) syncretic Hindu sect, and also seems rather out of place. Lastly, I am guessing that the triple crescent of Diane de Poitiers is supposed to represent wicca or mother goddess type neopaganism which unfortunately bears a strong resemblance to the Biological hazard Symbol. Notably missing is any symbol for Buddhism - normally recognised as a major world religion. In light of your question, I feel that it is correct to edit the picture somewhat. If we were to represent nine religions, it seems to make sense to use the top nine organized religions found on World religion - namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahá'í, Jainism, Shinto. Notable absences would be those excluded by the 'organized religion' requirement - Chinese traditional, Primal Indigenous, African traditional, and Secular/Atheists.. (20040302 10:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

I have amended the picture for uses where it is meant to be representative of different religions. This should better reflect what I mention above. There is no ordering used in the image - I merely replaced some symbols with symbols from more popular reliigions. Moreover, I have thickened the lines used in order to make it more visible for Template:User religious pluralism. See Major world religions for the choice - I restricted the set to organised religions. (20040302 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

I think the page Christianity and politics should be cross linked: there should be more pages on other religions under the same heading.

Ditto links to the pages of which Interreligious relations is one component.

Can this talk page be shortened/archived?

Talk Archiving

The old talk pages were unwieldy and had falled into disuse. I archived them. There was no useful discussion about the merger proposal or NPOV dispute. Hopefully, the interested parties will now post. PhatJew 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to write the Sikh point of view of this topic (Religious pluralism). BrownMan84 4:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Graceful co-existence

I propose to replace the phrase 'peaceful co-existence' with 'graceful co-existence' --Ancheta Wis 09:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree 'graceful' has a particular meaning in Christian theology which does not apply here. Maybe "Harmonious coexistence" or something like that. -- Chris Q 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the sanity check. --Ancheta Wis 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pluralism of articles

Recently I expanded on the religious intolerance article, adding a section on contemporary attitudes and policies. Inevitably being as it is a survey of law and attitudes regarding the issue it also covers those countries with laws against religious intolerence. However, since these laws could also be seen as promoting religious pluralism, promoting religious tolerance, promoting religious freedom or preventing religious persecution I must admit to being at a loss as to where it is most suitable. Do we really need separate articles on religous freedom, tolerence, pluralism, intolerence and persecution? I have to say it seems somewhat excessive. In any case, I'd appreciate some feedback on the section I added to religious intolence, and some suggestion as to where the content would be most appropriate. Daduzi 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I just glimsped over religious intolerance quickly and it seems good. I'll take a more indepth look in the near future. In regards to which articles should exist, I agree that there is too many. The religious tolerance article seems to me not well written, and so I would comine religious tolerance and religious intolerance into one article. I also see religious freedom, religious persecution and religious pluralsim as subtopics of religious tolerance/intolerance, I think they should be summarized in the religious tolerance/intolerance article, and have a main link to their appropriate pages. -- Jeff3000 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What would you think about following the systemic bias thread of reasoning? At the least it would lift up the discussion out of its current tracks within law, country, region etc. and give it a global basis. Another possibility might be to follow a completely personal track (individual pluralism / individual practice of religion). Yet another possibility might be to cover the political power of each culture and the relationship of each culture to its religion(s), and its possible evolution over time. It is pretty clear to me that an individual following his nose on a religious choice is doomed to annihilation if he contravenes the laws of his host culture or society. Yet enough individuals acting en masse can change the culture or society, and eventually, the laws. That leads us to the concept of tipping point. This suggests that the religious pluralism article might be the best venue, as any culture where intolerance or persecution is the mode would beat back any move toward a tipping point with violence. --Ancheta Wis 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Impossible Article

Religious Pluralism is one of the few articles that Wikipedia cannot create. Because, in order to stay at least somewhat united in purpose and function, Wikipedians must have similar viewpoints and biases, constituting a community of Tolerance more than anything. Tolerance and pluralism are certainly related, but nonetheless incompatible. The disorganization of this article and the disputes that constantly surround it are not only inevitable, but show how this is The Impossible Article for Wikipedia.

69.197.111.78 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is unduly pessimistic. There are good articles on many controversial topics. -- Chris Q 09:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographical mention?

Many religions in the United States, for example, teach that theirs is the only way to salvation and to religious truth, and some of them would even argue that it is necessary to suppress the falsehoods taught by other religions. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, with many other Protestant sects, argue fiercely against Roman Catholicism, and fundamentalist Christians of all kinds teach that religious practices like those of paganism and witchcraft are pernicious. I'm editing that because not at all sure how this is related to "religions in the United States"--it's not their "United States-ness" that is the defining characterization, but there exclusivist theology. (Also, this is a problem in many parts of the world, not least in Taliban Afghanistan, where the Buddhas were destroyed.) Further, even groups which have an exclusivist theology are capable of co-existing (tolerance), even while they are actively preaching that everyone else is wrong. They do, after all, co-exist without incident most of the time. Miss w 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Narrow point of view

Sounds like all you guys live in Massachusetts. There is the rest of the world, you know. And for that matter, the rest of the country. Please consider the narrowness of your cultural vision. Perhaps reading more articles about other parts of the world would help you out. NLOleson 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This comment is completely opaque. What are you trying to say? You applied a POV tag, but are leaving other editors to guess at what a Massachusetts point of view on the subject of religious pluralism might be, and where in this article it might be over-represented. Jkelly 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. What on Earth does that mean? Yes, I'm currently from Massachusetts, but I was also from Buffalo and have lived in Albuquerque, and, more to the point, did my undergrad work in comparative religion. I did focus on U.S. religion (because I find it interesting), but I didn't note anything in the article that screamed "Massachusetts" or even "New England" (usually associated with a heavy-handed philosophical moralism as opposed to pragmatism or charismatic movements, though of course there were often charismatic leaders and pragmatists involved). Miss w 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Relligious Pluralism Article

I note what appears to be a mistaken beleif that the Muslim faith denies Christ was crucified. My limitd knowledge of the Koran indicates that Mohammed wrote that Christ was crucified but "merely fainted" on the cross, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.147.94 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Is this article about religious pluralism or religious tolerance?

I realize that some people use the terms interchangeably, but since there is a religious tolerance article already, I would suggest that this article be about the first definition in the intro:

  • Religious Pluralism may describe the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus recognizes that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions.

I will call this "definition 1" for short. The problem with the current article is that the sections keep switching between definitions without making it clear which definition is being discussed. For example, "The belief that all religions can teach truths" is about definition 1, "Pluralism as interfaith dialogue" is partly about religious tolerance but mostly about ecumenism, "Conditions for the existence of religious pluralism" is entirely about religious tolerance. In addition to being confusing, there is a not-so-subtle (although perhaps to some extent accidental) implication that those who reject definition 1 of religious pluralism also reject ecumenism and/or religious tolerance. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty terrible, so go ahead and change it in any way you think will improve it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Classical Christian View?

I'm not a religious scholar but I don't think that the "classical Christian view" presented in this article really represents the entirety of Christian belief. Honestly, it sounds like the words of a preacher in a traditional Protestant church. Certainly the views conflict with the traditional Roman Catholic Church which propose that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. From the Roman Catholic view the good works of man are necessary in order to achieve salvation. Since this view takes some of the weight off of accepting Christ and places it on good deeds there is an inherent logical progression to pluralism. Increasingly, Roman Catholic scholars and laypeople have taken the significance of the works of man to accept the possibilty of those who do good deeds, but are not Christian, being "saved."

I wonder if the writer of this section is so biased against religious pluralism that he or she is unable to be pluralistic about ideas within his or her own religion. Oh, and get some references in there... Pastor Bob doesn't count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanvitale (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Orthodox view on Roman Catholic Sacraments

I'd propose changing or moderating the sentence "Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the concept of "validity" when applied to Sacraments, but it considers the form of Roman Catholic Sacraments to be acceptable, if still devoid of actual spiritual content." - only the most conservative Eastern Orthodox would deem the Roman Catholic Sacraments as "devoid of actual spiritual content." Most Orthodox recognize the Catholic sacraments as truly Sacraments, and the Roman Catholic Church as truly Church, though excluded from ecclesiastical communion. This is similar to the now common Catholic view on the Ortodox Church, and though both camps have conservatives viewing the other Church as "devoid of actual spiritual content," the mainstream members and theologians of both Churches would go for the more liberal view. I haven't changed this myself as I need citations/references and a better source than the Russian Orthodox priests I've talked to about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.54.126 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Muslim Bias

There are a couple of phrases which appear to have been written by a Muslim who believes that the Caliphate and Muslim rule heralded an immediate wonderful age for non-Muslims in the conquered areas. I have toned them down a bit, and pointed out that non-Muslim non-"people of the book" had no rights ascribed to them. I have also removed a totally irrelevant sentance talking about the Hajj as an example of Muslim brotherhood, etc. This has zero relevance to religious plurality and to non-Muslims, who could traditionally only go to Mecca on pain of death anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrospective views -- Huh?

The seventh and last paragraph under heading #1, "The belief that all religions can teach truths", seems oddly derived to me. The religions listed are each part of a nearly direct succession. Christianity formed after the life of Jesus (who actually taught Judaism, not a new religion), and was based on Judaism. Islam formed during the life of Muhammad, and has deep roots in Judaism as well as influences from Christianity. Baha'i is influenced by Islam, and those before. And ALL of them follow many of the same religious figures and tenets. This is not an example of retrospective pluralism, it is just an obvious consequence of the history and beliefs of these four religions. I think this is a case of applying an effect to the wrong cause.. a hidden variable, an erroneous conclusion. Anyone else think this section would be best removed? It doesn't add any useful information to the article besides this strange observation regarding Judaism and its successors. 74.36.116.152 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph in question until someone presents a valid argument to support it, and revises the paragraph to reflect that argument. 74.36.116.152 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Any criticisms?

Reading the article it does not look like many people (except some fervent religious sects) have opposed religious pluralism. Is this true? How is religious pluralism linked to relativism ? Does one lead to the other? 205.205.142.75 (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominus Jesus

The Catholic Church (Cal Ratzinger) has reaffirmed its opposition to religious pluralism (see the document called Dominus Jesus) this should be noted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with soteriology

There needs to be information on controversial relationships between religious pluralism and soteriology, as it is found here for example. [3]69.157.229.153 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Magisterium

There ought to be something added on pluralism vs. the Magisterium. One of the main reasons that Catholics have been historically cold to the idea of pluralism is that the Magisterium functions like a unilateral Teaching body and does not allow for easy discussions, like in some or most branches of Judaism, Islam, Protestantism and Secularism.ADM (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pluralism and dogmas

A related issue is the controversial relationship between pluralism and Catholic dogmas, such as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension of Jesus, etc. Catholics can't be Catholic without their religious beliefs or dogmas, and in many cases pluralism implies an implicit rejection of dogmas. ADM (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Works cited?

It was quite a surprise to find the work of Chris Beneke mentioned under "Works cited". After all, on the first pages he explain the differences between religious pluralism and religious toleration, so you can't possibly say the the first is a synonym of the latter. So I had to at least check the edit history. The mentioning of the work was added by User:Historyball (diff), but he apparently didn't actually do any work on the article. Zara1709 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to List Inter-religious Attitudes?

Ian Barbour, in his book Religion and Science, defines five different attitudes religious communities can hold toward other religions (citing as references Owen Thomas, ed, Attitudes Towards Other Religions, and Hick and Hebblethwaite, eds, Christianity and Other Religions). Here's how the Barbour material matches (it mostly does) what's currently in Wikipedia:

1. Absolutism (equals exclusivism): that my religion is the only true one, all others are false.
2. Approximations of Truth (equals inclusivism: others have truth, but mine's the fullest expression of it.
3. Identity of Essence: Barbour describes this as believing all religions are basically the same though expressed in different cultural forms. I don't think this is the same as syncretism, so I think the idea is under-represented in this article and elsewhere.
4. Cultural Relativism: (equals relativism): religions must be understood in their self-contained, culturally-relative, and incommensurable settings. Belief claims have to be discounted.
5. Pluralistic Dialogue (equals this article): one example Barbour gives is of Hick - that the variety of traditions exhibit multiple forms of revelation as well as differences in human perception. Salvation (transformation to reality-centeredness) occurs in many traditions.

Since this article is about pluralism (only one of the five attitudes), where should the overall comparison be located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedlau (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a spectrum of things we mean when we say Religious Pluralism. On the one hand, it can be a strictly descriptive term: that is, it simply refers to the fact that there are numerous religions, without making a value judgment. On the other hand, it can refer to a variety of philosophical positions that deny the existence of a best or final religion, instead affirming the validity of most or all of them. (This includes most notably Barbour's groups 3 and 4. Barbour's fifth point is really more a feature of the third and fourth. I would place Hick in group 3, myself. The classification scheme in Paul Knitter's No Other Name might be more helpful than Barbour's.)
I think that this article actually confuses matters by failing to distinguish pluralism as a sociological fact, and pluralism as a philosophy/theology of religions. The fact that we can have an article with this title without mentioning Hick, Knitter, or Wilfred Cantwell Smith is a symptom of that confusion. CaliforniaKid (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We Should Split This Article

I propose splitting this into two articles: Religious pluralism (sociology) and Religious pluralism (philosophy). See my comments immediately above. In sociology it is a descriptive term for the existence of multiple religions alongside each other. In philosophy (and theology) it describes the idea that no religion stands out above the others as superior or final, but that all have validity.

The current content of the article obviously doesn't really fit either of these definitions. Most of it, I think, just needs to be deleted. I hate to say that about someone's hard work, but it's the truth. Maybe some of it can be incorporated into Religious Toleration, Interfaith, and Theology of religions. (Theology of religions is currently defined on that page as referring to Christian theology, but presumably other religions have their own theologies of religions. So that might be a good place for much of this article to go.) CaliforniaKid (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Inter-religious pluralism

Christian views

"there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement" is being reduced to "there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism" as this is the section for Christian views of Inter-religious pluralism, not the section for Christian views of the Baha'i Faith. Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenism vs. Syncretism

The sentence about ecumenism in the opening para is not really correct. This should be called syncretism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwlegg (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This page has evolved to focus on views (i.e., doctrines)

As it has evolved, almost all sections of this page have focused on views/doctrines/teachings, rather than attempting to systematically chronicle and evaluate historical behaviors. However, one or two editors (an IP, and then Profitoftruth85) have recently inserted material about how Hinduism has been appropriated by various political movements, and used as a support of intolerance. I believe this is an unpromising direction for this page. No doubt, historical examples can be found of how every major faith tradition has been abused by political movements. Most or all faith traditions will also have been seized upon by mobs and used as a source of sloganeering to justify violence. But turning this page into a chronicle of such abuses would profoundly change its focus. I propose/argue:

1. The main focus of the page should be maintained as views/doctrines/teachings by religious leaders / religious texts (subject to WP:DUE)
2. Examples of historical behaviors should be understood as relevant to the page primarily in how they might illustrate what those views can and have meant in practice (again, subject to WP:DUE)
3. Perhaps there is warrant for a "discrepant behaviors" section that cites examples of when avowed adherents to various traditions (often mobs and politicians, but sometimes religious leaders) have acted contrary to the teachings of their own traditions about pluralism. If such a section were constructed, I suggest it should note that such discrepancies are found across most or all traditions, without giving undue attention to the behaviors/failures of any one tradition (WP:DUE). Nor should it seek explicitly or implicitly to compare between different traditions the degree of historical or current hypocrisy, unless, of course, there are reliable scholarly sources that put forward such comparisons (see WP:NOR, WP:RS, etc.).

Without regulative principles such as these, I am concerned that the page could degenerate into a forum for advocacy of various grievances (WP:SOAP). Fora for legitimate grievances are indeed needed (riots by Hinduism-espousing mobs have been horrific, and sadly abetted by politicians), but this page is not the place for a forum for such legitimate grievances (WP:FORUM).

Based on the fact that #1 above seems already to have been the emphasis of the page (and #2 seems mostly through perhaps not fully already followed), I intend to remove the recently re-inserted commentary by the IP and Profitoftruth85; please do not re-insert without discussion, hopefully that addresses the above concerns. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would someone please remove this statement: "This was a common historical attitude prior to the Enlightenment, and has appeared as governmental policy into the present day under systems like Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamyan."

One should not put his historical analysis regarding Christian world age of enlightment and present day Afghanistan. Too much personal analysis that has no direct relation with religious pluralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.118.26 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_pluralism/Archive_1&oldid=1279265803"