| The hypocrisy of Pluralism The American Heritage dictionary defines religious pluralism as: a. A condition in which numerous distinct religious groups are present and tolerated within a society. b. The belief that such a condition is desirable or socially beneficial. Pluralism now seems to be predominant among most religious leaders… ones in the civilised world anyway. But why would any religious leader promote the idea that the existence of any religion other than their own is “desirable” or “socially beneficial”? Dealing with the issue of other religions puts all religious leaders in a quandary. If they accept the pluralist view the advantage is they can present themselves as inclusive, peace-loving and moderate. The disadvantage is that they have to accept that other religions are just as “valid” as theirs – even ones with diametrically opposed beliefs. But if they reject the idea of pluralism then they have to take the fundamentalist/absolutist position. They have to declare that their religion is the one true one - the only one doing God’s will and that all other religions were created by, or are at least supported by, Satan the devil. The advantage of this position is that it is logical and decisive. The disadvantage is that it is confrontational. It means they have to point fingers at all those Satan supported false religions. They have to get nasty! Religious leaders’ solution to this seemingly intractable problem is, at the same time, ingenious and ridiculous! Firstly, they avoid the subject. When was the last time you heard any pluralist religious leader initiate a discussion about other religions?! If the subject is not discussed, it’s not a problem! If they can’t avoid the subject they either try to face both ways at the same time, or on any particular day, they make their declared position fit the circumstances of the moment. Here are just two examples of this blatant hypocrisy: In their literature, Mormons declare that all religions have “much of value” to teach people (very pluralistic wouldn't you say?). But in the same paragraph they also declare that the “only” path to salvation is through the Mormon Church! (How absolutist is that?!) The Roman Catholic encyclopaedia (www.newadvent.org) makes it very clear that Catholics regard themselves as the one and only true religion - no pluralist sentiment there! But amongst all the gushing over the late “great” Pope John Paul, was the fact that he was the first Pope to enter a Muslim mosque and a Jewish synagogue! Wow! Does this mean Catholics now believe that other religions are “valid’ and provide an alternative route to heaven? Of course not! The Pope was just behaving like most other religious leaders who now have no stomach for any kind of theological fight. They would much rather be seen to be “conciliatory”, “inclusive” and “tolerant” of other religions – completely unlike the God they claim to represent! Pluralist religious leaders, you are cowards and hypocrites! If you truly believe in pluralism, then prove it! In the civilised world your membership is in steady decline. Most of your churches are empty most of the time. If your neighbouring church is home to one of those other “valid” religions then why not share one building? Why not sell one of those churches and raise millions of dollars to help the really poor people in this world? Wouldn’t your God approve of such a selfless act? Of course this will never happen because the truth is that religious leaders pay only lip-service to pluralism. Behind closed doors, away from the eyes and ears of the media and potential recruits they all spout bigotry because their real belief is that they are right and every other religion is false! In spite of the sickening hypocrisy involved, SMART society actually welcomes the move towards pluralism because it virtually eliminates the possibility of fanaticism. When did you last hear of a fanatical religious pluralist?! |
||||
