Pluralism: A Future and a Hope for Religious Diversity in the U.S.

GoldenEagle »

Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

I guess my thinking is that I am thankful we have the freedom to disagree without one side or the other being thrown in jail or even worse.That is what I mean.I am not saying that I believe every point of view is equally valid or true.However, I am saying that I am thankful that I live in a country where I have the freedom to express my beliefs without fear of imprisonment or death.It has worked in this country for over 200 years.It can continue to work!!

HAWK49 »

Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PeaceByJesus: You are absolutely correct. Every law our government enacts represents a specific religious morality........be it Humanism or Judeo/Christian. It will be interesting to see how shari law will play into this mix as the Muslim population insists on its own beliefs be accommodated by government and institutions. Pluralism looks good on paper but doesn't work well in practice as the morals and values between humanists and Chrisitians are diametrically opposed. There will continutally be a battle in the public square over these issues. I suppose the real question is whether or not the battle for ideas in the public square will ever become civil as long as we have the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

PeaceByJesus »

Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The problem is that one cannot fully separate government, and it's legal and educational facilities, from a belief system. Who says that adultery is wrong, or profanity in school?

The first amendment assumed a Judaeo-Christian morality would be supported, though not formal sanction or requirements of one sect, and never foresaw the implementation (esp. on a State level) of the one-sided separation that modern secularists have pursued, which has supplanted the implicitly sanctioned morality of the general Christian faith with an officially sanctioned secularism, which is a belief system of it's own.

Such supposed pluralism is intolerant of those who hold truth to be exclusive by nature, as logical as that is, and excludes (by various means according to it's power) as "intolerant" those from it's embrace. The rest is history.

Biblical Christianity, not the Roman version, does not act as the State, though the latter does well when it's esteems it's morality, and allows others outside it to practice their own faith, though it seeks by effectively spiritual means by convict the souls of the evilness of sin, and turn many to righteousness thru faith and surrender to the Lord Jesus, who gave Himself for us (and rose) to that end (1Pt. 2:24). Praise the Lord.

GoldenEagle »

Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well said, citizen!!

Citizen »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

GoldenEagle: We are definitely on the same page in that regard. Religious tolerance all the way. I have to give you props for recognizing that, even though it would naturally be harder for you as the majority faith. It's easy to get comfortable with privilege when you are in the majority, and forget to treat minorities well, lest a day come when you are in the minority. Kudos!

BOC560 »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

In a pluralistic society such as you describe, we might get along famously in spite of our differences. The problem occurs when we die. Who was right? Which one “made it?” Did any of you “make it” or does it even matter whether did or didn'tt? Certainly not to the politicians and apparently not to the Christian church leaders who refuse to take a stand for true biblical doctrine.

It makes all the difference of LIFE and DEATH to us as individuals. While YOU may not care if I am damned for faith in false doctrine, it matters a great deal to ME! I want to know what God expects of me and to accomplish it that I might be with Him in the hereafter and for my loved ones as well. I even have compassion to hope that YOU would see the doctrine of our salvation and be saved from eternal torment.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

“To employ soft words and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance; to deal with errors that strike at the foundations of all human hope as if they were harmless and venial mistakes; to bless where God disapproves, and to make apologies where He calls us to stand up like men and assert, though it may be the most apt method of securing popular applause in a sophistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to heaven. Those who on such subjects attach more importance to the rules of courtesy than they do the measure of truth do not defend the citadel but betray it into the hands of its' enemies. Love for Christ, and for the souls for whom he died, will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers by which men's souls are ensnared". (quoted in a sermon by George Sayles Bishop, author of The Doctrines of Grace and Kindred Themes, 1910).

BOC560

GoldenEagle »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I thought the same thing.As a Christian, I want a nation of religious tolerance.Otherwise, I allow for the possibility of my own faith not being tolerated.Good stuff!!

zenodaddy »

Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:07 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Wow, excellent article! This man is right on the money.