Religion is at the root of many conflicts in our world today. From the violent persistence of ISIS in the Middle East to ongoing arguments over the phrase “One nation under God” in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, it is hard to escape the controversial issues created by diverging religions. As a solution some would argue that religion itself be obliterated. Others would propose that all religious people keep to themselves in order to prevent religions from clashing with each other. A third proposed solution, which is gaining more popularity in the religious world today, is pluralism. Pluralism approaches religion with the purpose of creating understanding and mutual respect between differing religions. According to pluralist Eboo Patel,
…show more content…
In pluralistic situations, it is difficult to find equality between religions without demeaning any of their values. Enrique Espinosa critically observes such issues in an article detailing President Obama’s 2008 campaign and the highlights his political theology. Obama offers many tactics through which pluralism in an American society can be achieved. Firstly, religious people must learn compromise and find shared values. Their must focus their energy on goals that will be beneficial to society as a whole, rather than just their own religion. They must be open to changing their own religious convictions in order for society to achieve a common good. Open mindedness, according to Obama, leads to people letting go of what makes their own beliefs unique and beneficial to society; Patel believes this to be necessary for common good to be achieved. There are many pluralists that share in these ideas; that pluralism and open mindedness are achieved by letting go of the key cultural and spiritual characteristics that give each religion its own unique significance. Although no one is intentionally looking to demean any one religion’s values, this is a common approach, and will be difficult to filter out in the face of …show more content…
Pally looks specifically at the fine line between assimilation and participation in American society; a differentiation that is potentially problematic in regard to pluralism. As people of diverse religions (that is, not Christianity) immigrate to the United States, they come to a fork in the road as they enter American society; they either assimilate or participate. Assimilation, according to Pally, is “dissolving” into a society, as opposed to participating economically, politically, and socially in American life. By assimilating, they do not allow their own beliefs and practices to be exposed and publicized, or to become part of American society. Assimilation does not allow individual religions to evolve or change over time; rather these religions become invisible in the busy diversity of America. This can either be their choice, or it could be forced upon them by the static society into which they enter. Either way, this must be counteracted for pluralism to be successful. Religious minorities in America must be allowed go beyond assimilation and begin to participate in society. Increasing their presence in American life leads to “familiarity with difference” for Americans when they are constantly experiencing beliefs that are different from their own, and thus are developing tolerance (Pally
In pluralistic situations, it is difficult to find equality between religions without demeaning any of their values. Enrique Espinosa critically observes such issues in an article detailing President Obama’s 2008 campaign and the highlights his political theology. Obama offers many tactics through which pluralism in an American society can be achieved. Firstly, religious people must learn compromise and find shared values. Their must focus their energy on goals that will be beneficial to society as a whole, rather than just their own religion. They must be open to changing their own religious convictions in order for society to achieve a common good. Open mindedness, according to Obama, leads to people letting go of what makes their own beliefs unique and beneficial to society; Patel believes this to be necessary for common good to be achieved. There are many pluralists that share in these ideas; that pluralism and open mindedness are achieved by letting go of the key cultural and spiritual characteristics that give each religion its own unique significance. Although no one is intentionally looking to demean any one religion’s values, this is a common approach, and will be difficult to filter out in the face of …show more content…
Pally looks specifically at the fine line between assimilation and participation in American society; a differentiation that is potentially problematic in regard to pluralism. As people of diverse religions (that is, not Christianity) immigrate to the United States, they come to a fork in the road as they enter American society; they either assimilate or participate. Assimilation, according to Pally, is “dissolving” into a society, as opposed to participating economically, politically, and socially in American life. By assimilating, they do not allow their own beliefs and practices to be exposed and publicized, or to become part of American society. Assimilation does not allow individual religions to evolve or change over time; rather these religions become invisible in the busy diversity of America. This can either be their choice, or it could be forced upon them by the static society into which they enter. Either way, this must be counteracted for pluralism to be successful. Religious minorities in America must be allowed go beyond assimilation and begin to participate in society. Increasing their presence in American life leads to “familiarity with difference” for Americans when they are constantly experiencing beliefs that are different from their own, and thus are developing tolerance (Pally