Simply stated; religious pluralism refers to the (supposed) acceptance of various religions. It is the (supposed) acceptance of the validity of various theologies.
But why the “(supposed)” statements?
Consider the following statement:
The Rev. Ron Hersom will be welcomed…as the new minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Jacksonville…
Hersom was the 2004 scholar at the Tsubaki Grand Shrine in Mie Prefecture, Japan where he studied Shinto, the national religion.
A Unitarian Universalist for 20 years, his experiences in Japan as the 2004 Tsubaki Grand Shrine scholar, he says, deepened his commitment to pluralism and his belief that no one faith or tradition has the answer -- they all do…
Ordained in 2007 into the Unitarian Universalist ministry by First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque, N.M….He then stayed as the assistant minister in Albuquerque until his call to the Jacksonville Church.[1]
The key is the statement about “his commitment to pluralism and his belief that no one faith or tradition has the answer -- they all do.”
That “no one faith or tradition has the answer” implies that there is an unstated question and that either there is one answer which all religions have or that there are various answers which is why all religions have it.
Now, here is the issue and it is the same issue as with the popular versions of syncretism, relativism, inclusivism and pluralism of all sorts and kinds: the fact is that we are all exclusivists. This is very simply proved: if you disagree with the statement “we are all exclusivists” then you have just proved the point as you have excluded the statement from the realm of truth.
What if my religion claims that only one faith or tradition has the answer? Then my religion would be wrong and thus would end the great pluralism experiment—if, that is, pluralists were logically consistent which, by definition, they cannot be.
Consider this: all religions do not claim that all religions have the answer. All claim to have the answer. All claim some sort of exclusivity; or else they would not be distinct religions.
Now, Ron Hersom claims that all religions do have the answer. In making this claim he is affirming that he is right in this view and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Thus, he is an exclusivist.
In short and in all actuality Ron Hersom may have a point as all religions are and believe the same things. Oh, yeah, they only differ on minor side issues such as origins, the nature of God, sin, salvation, end times and our eternal destiny—other than that, they are all the same :o)
To learn more about Unitarian Universalism, please see this link.
Note:
[1] “Jacksonville Unitarians welcoming new minister,” St. Augustine Record, August 12, 2010, copyright 2010 St. Augustine Record. All rights reserved
Comments
You are, of course, free to hold whatever religious beliefs you wish. But it smacks of too much pride (isn't that one of the sins?) to believe that a human being, any human being - understands the unfathomable. To do so is to reduce the universal creator to something small.
Anyone with a shred of humility might conclude that. And find room for the belief that their comprehension is limited, and thus there might be others with different comprehensions.
But even I clearly have my own bias. I can't believe that God, however construed, really wants us to fight and kill one another in that holy name.
I am not going to attempt to defend Rev. Ron Hersom's comments because I don't know what was said other that what you have quoted. But, as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe you have taken the reverend's comments out of context.
Unitarian Universalism does not state that "all religions have the answer." It states that there is value in all religious traditions. We do not claim that anyone, Unitarian Universalist or not, has "the answer." But we do believe that aspects of any religion may help anyone find the answer that is right for them. We don't believe that anyone has The Truth, but that any religion tradition can help an individual find their own Truth.
Unitarian Universalism welcomes all people, of whatever race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, or religious background into our beloved community. I hardly find that exclusivist.
Mariano,
I agree with the previous two comments. Also, instead of quoting Rev. Ron Hersom's words, you are quoting a news article that was written about him. If you took the time to talk with Rev. Hersom, or listen to one of his sermons on religious pluralism, he would probably say something like the previous comment, that "there is value in all religious traditions."
Your argument that pluralism is "illogical" is a straw man. You set up a ridiculous conception of pluralism ("all religions are and believe the same things") that no one actually believes, and then knock it down. This kind of "reasoning" persuades no one, except those who are already inclined to agree with you. You would be better served by taking the time to understand what religious pluralism is really about, in theory and in practice.
All religions do not "claim to have the answer," as you contend. Nor is "exclusivity" needed for a religion to have a distinct identity. I know people from several distinct religious traditions who see value in religions outside their own, and who are committed to religious pluralism.
Namaste,
Steve Palm-Houser
Unitarian Universalism Examiner
Mariano,
Just wondering...do you have anything to say in reply to the comments that have been posted on this article?
Steve
Mariano,
I guess I'll take your silence as a "no."
Steve
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!