Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Religious pluralism is a fact (not a belief system)

Religious pluralism is a fact (not a belief system)

Last updated on: October 6, 2014 at 7:09 pm by Fred Clark

Religious pluralism is a fact (not a belief system) 2014-10-06T19:09:54-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“Religious pluralism [is] the idea that all religions are basically the same.”

I came across that astonishingly confused statement yesterday reading a Christian blog.

That statement is so precisely wrong that it can provide a kind of service. It is wrong in a way — or, rather, in several ways — that can help us to better understand a great deal of the world around us. The misapprehending and misapprehension distilled in that single statement can give us new insight and understanding into many things — the misplaced assuredness of one kind of earnestly addled pop-apologetics, the angry bewilderment of the teavangelical white right, the persistence of sectarian violence in post-colonial regions of the Middle East and Africa.

This Anemone rivularis will be our special guest at next month’s Civic League Luncheon, where it will debate the doctrine of heliotropism with a Helianthus maximiliani.

We’ll unpack some of those implications of this epic confusion later, but here I just want to focus on the glorious, epic wrongness of that sentence:

“Religious pluralism [is] the idea that all religions are basically the same.”

What we have here is a complete misrepresentation and misunderstanding of religious pluralism. The statement gets only a single letter correct — the “s” at the end of the word “religons,” which signifies that more than one religion exists.

That single correct letter underscores the remarkable wrongness of the rest of the sentence. It leaps out at us as an isolated, accidental acknowledgement of the actual meaning of religious pluralism: More than one religion exists.

That shows us how this poor guy’s assertion starts careening off the rails just a few words in:

“Religious pluralism [is] the idea …”

No. Religious pluralism is not an “idea.” It is simply a fact — documented, measurable, demonstrable, undeniable.

More than one religion exists. That is not an idea, or a hypothesis, or a belief, or an ideology. The existence of more than one religion is an aspect of reality.

Our poor friend may have been misled by the suffix “-ism,” mistaking that for a sign he was dealing with another example of the many -ism words dealing with the realm of ideas. A generation or two ago, railing against all such -isms was a popular populist theme — a way of proclaiming one’s independence of all such ideologies (and one’s moral and intellectual superiority to those fools who saw value in any given school of thought).

And thus our friend seems to have forgotten that this suffix is also used in myriad nouns that are not schools of thought at all, but are simply the names we give to observed phenomena — heliotropism, giantism, heterothallism, polymorphism, etc. He assumes that all -ism terms — including “religious pluralism” — must be doctrinal or creedal, which is to say matters of belief rather than matters of fact.

But religious pluralism is not that kind of word. Anemone rivularis flowers track the motion of the sun across the sky. That does not mean that these flowers are believers in the ideology/doctrine of heliotropism. We do not refer to them as heliotrop*-ists*. No doctrine or ideology is involved — on their part or on ours. We’re simply describing a fact we have observed: Anemone rivularis is heliotrop*-ic.*

Similarly, we acknowledge that more than one single religion exists. That does not make us devotees of the doctrine of religious pluralism — it does not make us religious plural*-ists.* It simply means we have observed the rather obvious fact that our world is religiously pluralist*-ic.*

And, in fact, it is. A plural number of religions exist in our world.

This fact has many implications and presents many challenges. We can have many different ideas in response to this fact. We can debate various ideas about how to live together given the fact that more than one religion exists. (Or we can debate ideas about how we should refuse to live together until it is no longer a fact that more than one religious perspective exists.)

But please note one thing that this fact of a plural number of religions does not and cannot suggest — that “all religions are the same.” That’s nonsense. If all religions were “the same,” then we wouldn’t say “all religions are the same” — we’d say “all religion is the same.” We would refer to a singular phenomenon — a unified, uniform single thing. If all religions were the same, then referring to “religious pluralism” would make no more sense than referring to the “chromatic pluralism” of 1909 Model Ts. (“Any customer can have a car painted any color he wants so long as it is black,” Henry Ford said.)

The fact of religious pluralism is a fact precisely because we can observe that all religions are not the same. Our friend inserts a wiggle-word in there. “Basically the same,” he writes. But that won’t provide enough wiggle room to wriggle out from under the very large problem that this is not what “religious pluralism” means and that is is not something that religious pluralism can mean.

So how does our friend arrive at the weird notion that religious pluralism means “all religions are basically the same”? Where does he get that idea?

It arises from his inability/refusal to grasp the distinction between legal/civil equality and total equivalence.

Thus if there is more than one religion, and the law treats them all equally, he perceives this as a claim that this plural number of religions are all equal in every way — equally true, equally valid, equally admirable, equally desirable, equally meaningful, etc.

He imagines he’s hearing this sweeping larger claim of total equivalence and rejects it. And, because he also imagines this imaginary claim is indissolubly linked to the existence of legal/civil equality, he rejects that too.

That misapprehensive (in both senses) rejection of legal and civil equality for all religious persuasions in a pluralistic world leads to a host of Very Bad Things.

evangelicals

church & state

persecuted hegemons

Previous Post

October 6, 2014

Sometimes the world's just got it out for us

Next Post

October 7, 2014 USC hires a good guy as a humanist chaplain, and you'll never believe the surprising way that RNS chose to report it

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible has only one chapter?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Nahum Obadiah Habakkuk Zephaniah