Religious Pluralism: Robust or Tepid?
An article in the Op-Ed section of the Boston Globe caught my attention as I was reading this morning. "A Tin Ear on Religion" by Michael Gerson addresses the issue of religious pluralism and issues surrounding it.
While the author is criticizing an ad criticizing a Republican running for office in South Louisiana the Democratic party placed in a newspaper, for me illustrates some of the difficulties surrounding what we mean when we talk about religious pluralism. The Republican candidate, Bobby Jindal, is a Roman Catholic convert from Hinduism who is vocal about his faith. He told the author, "I'm proud of my faith. I believe in God, that Jesus died and rose. I can't divide my public and private conscience. I can't stop being a Christian, and wouldn't want to for a moment of the day." Referring to his faith as "robust," Gerson notes that he wrote in the 1990's about his belief that Roman Catholicism makes more sense to him than Protestantism. Apparently the local Democratic party has tried to create a wedge between Protestants and Roman Catholics over this position.
The point which he raises in all of this and which I do think captures an important dimension of our current postmodern culture is the idea that pluralism "means a public square purged of intolerance--defined as the belief in exclusive truth-claims and absolute right and wrong. " He quotes Jindal concerning this attitude: "This would be a poorer society if pluralism meant the least common denominator, if we couldn't hold a passionate, well-articulated belief system. If you enforce a liberalism devoid of content, you end up with the very violations of freedom you were trying to prevent in the first place." The author notes that some of the strongest defenders of Jindal's position are those who don't share is beliefs, like the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of New Orleans, David Crosby who wrote, Any body who read this whole article (an article in the Times-Picayune about Jindal's writings) and ends up angry just needs to grow up." Gerson uses this response as a stepping-stone for his definition of pluralism: "an adult respect for the strong convictions of others."
My own experience of both ecumenical (between various Christian faith traditions) and interfaith between Christian and other religions) dialogue has frequently been what Gerson calls lowest common denominator dialogue. I find these kinds of discussions bland and boring and generally not very enlightening. I would far rather engage in discussions with people of integrity and passion who believe what they believe and are willing to discuss them respectfully.
What do you think? What has your experience been?
While the author is criticizing an ad criticizing a Republican running for office in South Louisiana the Democratic party placed in a newspaper, for me illustrates some of the difficulties surrounding what we mean when we talk about religious pluralism. The Republican candidate, Bobby Jindal, is a Roman Catholic convert from Hinduism who is vocal about his faith. He told the author, "I'm proud of my faith. I believe in God, that Jesus died and rose. I can't divide my public and private conscience. I can't stop being a Christian, and wouldn't want to for a moment of the day." Referring to his faith as "robust," Gerson notes that he wrote in the 1990's about his belief that Roman Catholicism makes more sense to him than Protestantism. Apparently the local Democratic party has tried to create a wedge between Protestants and Roman Catholics over this position.
The point which he raises in all of this and which I do think captures an important dimension of our current postmodern culture is the idea that pluralism "means a public square purged of intolerance--defined as the belief in exclusive truth-claims and absolute right and wrong. " He quotes Jindal concerning this attitude: "This would be a poorer society if pluralism meant the least common denominator, if we couldn't hold a passionate, well-articulated belief system. If you enforce a liberalism devoid of content, you end up with the very violations of freedom you were trying to prevent in the first place." The author notes that some of the strongest defenders of Jindal's position are those who don't share is beliefs, like the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of New Orleans, David Crosby who wrote, Any body who read this whole article (an article in the Times-Picayune about Jindal's writings) and ends up angry just needs to grow up." Gerson uses this response as a stepping-stone for his definition of pluralism: "an adult respect for the strong convictions of others."
My own experience of both ecumenical (between various Christian faith traditions) and interfaith between Christian and other religions) dialogue has frequently been what Gerson calls lowest common denominator dialogue. I find these kinds of discussions bland and boring and generally not very enlightening. I would far rather engage in discussions with people of integrity and passion who believe what they believe and are willing to discuss them respectfully.
What do you think? What has your experience been?
posted by UCC Medfield at 7:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home