Category: Pluralism

Introduction to Pluralist and Power Elite Approaches

Human society is one of the most complicated aspects of the analysis regarding the relations between individuals, groups of individuals, and other entities that can be allocated in terms of resources of influence. Sociology of power emphasises the power relations between different communities and identifies the real influencing aspects that can alter a situation and the governance as well as the process of rule making.

In this respect, it is necessary to dwell on the principles of rule making and different approaches to this process as related to the political rule and social power that can be considered the most important factors while assessing the influence of certain resources on the power, governing power, and resulting in the political regime.

Different theories of power distribution can be analysed with regard to the power of influence and the amount of resources to influence others or situation. Though history saw many examples of both approaches, pluralist and power elite, it is necessary to enlarge on the principles of power distribution in society in different periods of human civilization’s activity with regard to the economic situation and social movements.

Moreover, the political power and the power of influence cannot be analysed as a single and the only aspect for the political regime establishment; these two concepts can be even opposed to each other or exist at the same period making one of those principles more important than other.

In other words, the distribution of power in society cannot always be analysed in terms of theories of political rule making. Besides, the power to make political decisions does not always arise from the real objective interests and can be characterised by the interests and preferences of the political participants (Lukes 2005: 29).

The pluralist approach is largely opposed to the power elite one in terms of ‘the business of rule’ and the process of rule making due to discrepancies in the regime’s strengths and the overall theoretical advantages of a definite approach. In other words, the pluralism approach highlights the equality of influencing powers regardless its real situation whereas the power of elite approach enables the most influential individuals to make rules.

So, the main idea of the current paper consists in analysing and assessing the contradictions between the pluralist and power elite approaches taking into account the distribution of power in society and allocation of resources compared to the political power and the process of rule making.

Theories of Political Rule and Social Power

Theories and the power elite approach.The power elite approach is mostly referred to as the one existing in the era before the French Revolution and is largely opposed to the democracy of the contemporary United States of America (Bull 2002: 8-9).

However, it is necessary to note that the concept of state and the problem of rule making are closely connected to the distribution of power because the power exist in a certain society while a society has certain rules and common interests.

In this respect, some states can exist regardless of a definite territory or a restriction of rules to a certain territory because the main concept of power distribution happens among individuals and groups that can be situated within the territory (Bull 2002: 9).

Nevertheless, though political power is spread over the population, it is often limited to a certain territory and can change regarding the interests of the same nation and preferences existing in various regions of the same state.

The main theory of power elite approach in rule making concerns the command as the way to allocate the process of distribution of power in society; however, it is necessary to emphasise the principle when the interests or rules are characterised as good or legal contrasted to the objective principles or unification of preferences that is typical of a power elite approach (Poggi 1978: 2-5).

In additions, the existence of visible diversity and other so-called advantages of the pluralist approach can be considered irrelevant because these concepts do not guarantee the appropriateness of political power or genuine equality in the power allocation principles (Lukes 2005: 47).

State and society are approached in different ways in by a power elite principle whereas the process of unification is more obvious taking into account the principles typical of the pluralist approach. So, the theory of differentiation is the core of the power elite approach because it enables a single leader to make decisions and make laws (often in association with another part of social elite) and there is no necessity to fight for political power as the main concept of influence is the command.

Theories and the pluralist approach. The pluralist approach to the rule making process makes the United States of America the most prominent example of this principle in action.

Though there is a number of irrefutable evidence of this method’s inappropriateness and secrecy (regardless of the observable openness), its benefits are largely promoted and supported by the global community and international society. Collective behaviour tradition can be considered the core concept for the pluralist approach to the process of rule making (Gamson 1975: 131).

This causes the unification of the relations between individuals, groups, and individual-group/group-individual relations in society. As social relations are commonly unified in accordance with the pluralist approach, inequality arises from the democracy as it appears in a contemporary society because interests are unified as well as preferences though the resources of influence can differ greatly which can result in relocation of political power and, hence, the change of the principles of rule making.

The main theories of the pluralist approach include the inferiority of the social preferences compared to the preferences and interests of the political power. As a rule, the pluralist approach is aimed at meeting the requirements of the democracy regardless the genuine principles of power allocation and the amount of resources of influence.

Thus, collective goals unify the social interests and make common rules serves the reaching of those goals; the political behaviour can be analysed with regard to the goals of a community opposed to personal interests and preferences (Gamson 1975: 138).

Benefits of the pluralist approach can be neutralized with the differentiating nature of the contemporary policy in the international society opposed to the principles of unification brought about by other communities that popularize the differentiation concepts. As the core aspect of the pluralist approach to the rule making is the unification, this theory can fail to address all existing interests and preferences topical for the current members of a society.

Distribution of Power in Society

Discussing the contradictions of the pluralist and power elite theories is incomplete with the consideration of the distribution of power in society.

In particular, these issues matter when applied to common analysis of presented theories either approving or disapproving the leading role of society in forming the power relations. Another difficulty arises when dealing with the problem of democracy and inequality. In this case, there is the necessity to make an emphasis on the character of the leading power and the triggering principle of power relations.

The major controversy appears when considering distribution of power in society in terms of pluralist views. Due to the fact that this approach is based on meeting the needs of democracies, social power is distributed according to the principle of equal impact on the government.

The problem is that equal distribution of power among physical entities is not always possible because of irrational resources allocation presented by material object, social status, and ethical considerations (Dahl 1961:3). In response to this problem, the necessity to introduce the elite power approach to social order is inevitable due to the rigid inequality of property, knowledge and social position, and publicity between the members of society (Dahl 1961:6).

In order to reconcile the needs of power elite and the constellations of influenced groups, it is necessary to consider power distribution with reference to institutional arrangement and command. These two concepts presented by Poggi (1978:3) seem to be quite reasonable from the perspective of political order and legitimacy.

Indeed, favorable distribution of resources on the basis of command is more effective that that based on custom and exchange. This is explained by the ideas that the body of custom end exchange cannot sustain the exploration and mobilization of new resources and values. In addition, it does not allow society to prevent various contingencies enabling the members to choose the most appropriate patterns to act (Poggi 1978:4).

Arising from everything mentioned above, the main principle of power allocation should be based on unanimous legitimate arrangement on the two-polar power system. Therefore, society should be directed by one or a specific set of goals that would encompass social and political order. Alternatively, the disposition of views and approaches, which is typical of pluralistic order, will lead to appearance of different values and beliefs (Bull 2002:4).

Bull’s approach to the distribution of power is predominantly based on monopolistic views that exclude the pluralist techniques for the decision-making process. Therefore, the introduction of democratic approaches will strike the balance within the domain of social and political dimensions (Emerson 1962:32).

Comparative Assessment of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Pluralism and Elite Power Approaches

Highlighting the strengths of the pluralist and elite power approaches. Each of the approaches under consideration has some strong sides due to their great contributions to the arrangement of social and political order.

Considering the pluralist theory, the positive side of pluralist approach implementation consists in its focus on social relation as the leading factor of power formation. In particular, the main underpinning of social power is not the leading actor, but the relation itself (Emerson, 1962: 33). The leaders possess power only when they have a specific group to impose power on.

In addition to this, the pluralist approach is more effective as far as a decision-making process is concerned. Lukes (2005:17), thus, places an emphasis on the social behavior as the triggering factor of social relations and as an indicator of power. Consistent and successful process of decision making generates a healthy competition that, in its turn, positively contributes to social, economical, and political development of a state.

In contrast, the main merit of the elite power approach in the process of rule making is also valuable. According to this theory, the social relations are governed by one purpose where all decisions are made with regard to this purpose.

The success of such monopolistic approach is possible in case the state is headed by the leader who has sufficient resources and who is able to allocate them within society in a reasonable way. The governing of one leader fosters the accomplishment of the established goals and decreases the possibility of disagreement within society (Bull 2002: 9). More importantly, the elite power theory contributes to the formation of social and political integrity.

Considering the elite theory of power through the prism of social order, this approach is more efficient in arranging rules and orders within a state, particularly if the flow of social activities is based on the principle of command (Poggi, 1978:5). Indeed, the exploration and advancement will be considerably facilitated under the auspices of a monopolistic power.

Highlighting the weaknesses of the pluralist and elite power approaches. Although the pluralist approach to the process of rule-making is more productive for meeting the needs of society, it encounters the difficulties when dealing with the equal allocation of sources (Dahl 1961:5). In particular, excessive democracy dictating equal participation in governing can lead to greater discrepancies between communities.

Discussing pluralism from the point of view of order formation, this method of rule making is irrelevant, because the social order cannot be based on the divergent positions. What is more important is mixed views cannot satisfy legal, moral, and economic aspect of decision making as the essence of political decision consist in the necessity to promote specific goals.

The problem of decision making arises when dealing with elite power approach to the process of rule making. By promoting the leaders’ rules and preferences, the government deprives society of political significance and minimizing its role in providing viable solutions.

In other words, the suppression of political role decreases the importance of social relations (Emerson: 1962: 32). As a result, the government can lose the object of power and, therefore, it cannot be considered to owner of the power itself. In addition, the concentration of power can even lead to great inequality of resources distribution.

Conclusion

The pluralist and elite power approaches constitute opposite sides of a two-polar system with regard to the process of rule making. This is primarily predetermined by opposite focus on the political systems and conceptual priorities of both approaches.

Hence, the pluralist approach is more concerned with influencing powers and social relations whereas the power of elite approach argues the necessity to establish a unanimous goal to pursue. On the one hand, a pluralistic approach considers social relations as the underpinning of governing and resources allocation.

It also strives to establish the equality in the process of decision-making. On the other hand, elite power concept is more effective in reaching the policy of unification where the international order is subjected to the prevailing superiority-inferiority relations. Taking into consideration all strengths and weaknesses, both approaches simultaneously provide viable solutions and serious controversies when applied to the distribution of power in society.

Works Cited

Bull, Hedley. The Concept of Order in World Politics. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. UK: Palgrave, 2002, Print.

Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Emerson, Richard M. “Power-Dependence Relations”. American Sociological Review. 27.1. (1962): 31-41. Print.

Gamson, William A. “the limits of Pluralism.” The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, 1975. Print.

Lukes, Steven. Power: a Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.

Poggi, Gianfranco. Introduction: The Business of Rule. The Development of the Modern State. California: Stanford University Press, 1978, Print.

Human beings experience forces to conform when they migrate into new and culturally foreign atmospheres. Immigrants may adapt to the cultural and social practices of their host communities through assimilation, ethnic pluralism, or transnationalism. These forms of adaptation have a number of similarities and differences that make them appropriate in different conditions.

Assimilation involves the incorporation of the minority immigrant groups into the majority group. They adopt the culture of the majority community. Ethnic pluralism, on the other hand, does not involve full integration.

The minority communities retain their cultural and social distinctions, as they dwell in foreign countries. Transnationalism is the next mechanism for conformation. It applies to migrants who do not stay in one country but continuously cross-national borders.

Assimilation has negative psychological consequences. Leading researches say that migrants who culturally assimilate experience advanced levels of stress and metal problems. In addition, such immigrants live under fear if they conform due to external forces.

This is because it is not possible for immigrants, particularly first and second generations, to assimilate completely. Usually, if immigrants do not experience social assimilation, they cannot experience cultural assimilation and identity assimilation. The latter is the perfect form of assimilation, yet is difficult to achieve.

Unlike assimilation, the modern society widely accepts transnationalism. This form of adaptation helps individuals to maintain social connection across national borders. In so doing, immigrants increase positive relationships between receiving countries and home countries.

This helps immigrants to have an economic impact in two countries simultaneously. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring capital from their home countries and invest in the foreign countries. In return, they repatriate some of their profits back home.

Transnational immigrants have the opportunity to influence politics in the host country. They can also influence politics back at home. However, in practice, only a few of them make use of the absentee ballot.

Immigrants can develop transnational identities. They may identify with both their home countries and receiving countries. However, it is always not easy for them to identify fully with receiving countries. This is because immigrants, especially high-skilled immigrants, rarely have negative encounters in host countries.

Therefore, they maintain national identity with home countries and endeavor to build national identity with host countries. This usually leads to rising of cosmopolitan individuals who have developed transnational identification with many nations.

Many people also appreciate ethnic pluralism. It works when the majority communities and minority communities tolerate each other. In this case, each community learns from each other.

In addition to transnationalism, assimilation and ethnic pluralism cause identity change. Immigrants experience an increase in levels of loyalty towards their home countries.

Immigration, also, disrupts an individual occupational identify. Individuals who work as middle class employee in their home countries cannot find similar jobs a broad. They end up doing unskilled jobs. Their social position in the society also declines.

When immigrating, people should be aware of their right to movement, expression, and association. The information is useful in choosing the right ways to conform to their host communities. Assimilation has a number of setbacks and, therefore, not fit for immigrants.

Individuals should embrace ethnic pluralism while permanently dwelling in foreign nations. However, immigrant who can take advantage of globalization should not embrace either assimilation or ethnic pluralism. Transnationalism offers many advantages to both the receiving and sending countries.

The United States of America is one of the most diversified counties in the world. Every year thousands of immigrants come here to search for opportunities and live a better life. For centuries, both Americans and foreigners have been learning to cooperate, communicate with people who differ from them, show them respect, and form a diversified society. The concept of pluralism represents variety in people, a right to differ from others, and diversity in their interests and opinions.

This political philosophy is meaningful and exists in every progressive environment. Pluralism refers to a society where there are numerous different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups that coexist, cooperate, form one nation, and contribute to society as a whole (). Successfully cooperating, different people can form the most sustainable, powerful, and invincible society together. Furthermore, people’s traditions from other countries, religions, and beliefs have to be respected and considered.

Pluralism is an essential component of a prosperous society: it allows people with entirely different backgrounds to share their experiences and cooperate. Diversity in people is the key to success; they can see any situation from different angles and provide the best result to any entity. In addition, pluralism considers distinctiveness in the points of view of other people and their different needs that have to be met and respected. The diversity of people can be seen in American schools, universities, courts, businesses, banks, soccer teams, and many other entities.

One of the best examples in nowadays society of pluralism is that every big company, like Google, Apple, SpaceX, and others, deliberately hires people with entirely different backgrounds. Looking at their workers, a person can notice ethnic, age, gender, religion, and background diversity. Companies explain that the aim of this decision is to gather people who will complement each other’s ideas which would lead to success. Moreover, the most successful result will be achieved by a varied community.

Reference

Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2017). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system (7th Edition). Cengage Learning US

Legal pluralism is the coexistence of multiple legal systems within a society. It can include customary laws, religious legal systems, state-enforced laws, and other forms of legal authority. The relationship between Sharia and legal pluralism has evolved over time and space and has been shaped by a variety of social, political, and cultural factors (Benton). In some contexts, Sharia has played a dominant role in rural pluralism, while in others, it has been marginalized or stressed. The ways in which policies have been managed by religious and legal differences have also varied and have been influenced by cultural, political, and historical contexts. In this regard, this essay will explore these issues in more detail, using specific examples from the various historical and contemporary contexts studies in this class. It will also include the operation of pluralism in the Ottoman Empire in semi-colonial colonial and postcolonial contexts.

Legal pluralism can arise in various contexts, including societies with different cultural, religious, and linguistic backgrounds. It can also exist in societies under colonization or other external influences. Legal pluralism can create additional challenges for the administration of justice, as it can cause conflicts between different legal systems and might make it difficult for the law to be applied fairly and consistently (Benton). At the same time, legal pluralism can also create opportunities for people to access justice via many legal channels and contribute to the resilience and diversity of legal systems.

Shari’a, which means “the path” in Arabic, is the Islamic legal system derived from the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Shari’a is a derived central aspect of Islamic life and is considered by many Muslims to be a fundamental source of guidance and direction (Ghamari-Tabrizi 328). In most Muslim societies, Shari’a plays a vital role in the legal system and is often considered a complementary or parallel legal system to state-enforced laws (Ghamari-Tabrizi 329). The relationship between Shari’a and state laws can be seen as an example of legal pluralism, as it encompasses the coexistence of multiple legal systems within a single society.

Shari’a and state laws may conflict in some instances, particularly concerning issues such as human rights and gender equality. As a result, this can create barriers to the administration of justice and may make it difficult for people to access justice via multiple legal channels (Ghamari-Tabrizi 330). In other cases, Shari’a and state laws may be complementary, with Shari’a providing a means for individuals and communities to access justice via religious courts and other informal legal channels. In this way, legal pluralism can provide opportunities for people and communities to access justice through multiple legal channels and contribute to the diversity and resilience of legal systems.

The relationship between Shari’a and legal pluralism has changed over time and space, depending on various cultural, political, and historical contexts. Sometimes, the role of Shari’a in the legal system has remained relatively constant, with Shari’a continuing to be a vital source of guidance and direction for Muslims and a parallel legal system to state-enforced laws (Ghamari-Tabrizi 332). However, in other cases, the relationship between Shari’a and legal pluralism has undergone essential changes due to globalization, modernization, and colonization.

For instance, in many Muslim societies colonized by European powers, the introduction of European legal systems and institutions resulted in a significant shift in the relationship between Shari’a and legal pluralism. In many cases, Shari’a was marginalized, and state-enforced laws became the dominant legal system (Fadel 187). Nonetheless, in recent decades, there has been a resurgence of interest in Shari’a and Islamic law, and many Muslim-majority societies have sought to incorporate Shari’a into their legal systems in various ways (Fadel 188). As a result, this has caused a shift towards a more pluralistic legal landscape, with Shari’a playing a prominent role alongside state-enforced laws.

The overall relationship between Shari’a and legal pluralism has changed over time and space and continues to evolve in response to various cultural, political, and social factors. The connection is a vital aspect of the legal systems of multiple Muslim societies and continues to be a subject of debate and discussion (Fadel 190). For instance, in the Ottoman Empire, Sharia played a central role in the legal system, with the courts applying Shari’a alongside customary law and other legal codes. However, the introduction of European legal systems and institutions during the period of semi-colonialism and colonialism led to a significant shift in the relationship between Shari’a and legal pluralism (Fadel 192). Shari’a was marginalized or suppressed in many colonized societies, and state-enforced laws became the dominant legal system. However, in recent decades, there has been a resurgence of interest in Shari’a and Islamic law. Many postcolonial societies have sought to incorporate Shari’a into their legal systems in various ways (Fadel 194). As a result, this has shifted towards a more pluralistic legal landscape, with Shari’a playing a more prominent role alongside state-enforced laws.

Different policies have differed in managing religious and legal differences in many ways. Some policies have enhanced legal pluralism and the coexistence of multiple legal systems, including state-enforced laws and religious legal systems such as Shari’a (Benton). The approach is vital in accommodating and recognizing cultural and religious differences within society (Benton). It can create opportunities for people and communities to access justice via multiple legal channels.

However, other institutions, such as Shari’a, have sought to suppress non-state legal systems in favor of a single, state-enforced legal system. The approach can create challenges for the administration of justice and may make it difficult for people to access justice via legal channels (Ghamari-Tabrizi 334). In addition, this approach can create conflicts between legal systems and may cause discrimination and marginalization of some groups, such as religious minorities. How polities in organizations have managed religious and legal variations have changed and been shaped by different cultural, political, and historical factors (Ghamari-Tabrizi 336). Thus, these variations can majorly impact the legal systems of different institutions and affect the rights and opportunities of individuals and communities within those societies.

For instance, in the Ottoman Empire, the legal system was relatively tolerant of religious and legal differences, with the Ottoman courts playing a variety of legal codes and allowing the coexistence of many legal systems. In contrast, religious and legal variation was often suppressed with state-enforced laws in many semi-colonial and colonial contexts (Ghabrial 288). Different policies have differed in their management of religious and legal differences, with some promoting legal pluralism and the coexistence of multiple legal systems. In contrast, others have sought to suppress or marginalize non-state legal systems, such as Shari’a (Ghabrial 288). The operation of legal pluralism in different historical and contemporary contexts has significantly impacted the legal systems of Muslim-majority societies. It continues to be a subject of debate and discussion. Conclusively, this essay has defined legal pluralism as the coexistence of several legal systems within one society or jurisdiction. The relationship between Shari’a and pluralism and how the relationship has changed over time and space has been explained. Finally, the paper has examined how polities differed in their management of religious and legal variations.

Works Cited

Benton, Lauren, and Richard J. Ross, eds. Legal pluralism and empires, 1500-1850. NYU Press, 2013.

Fadel, Mohammad. “Islamic Politics and Secular Politics: Can They Co-Exist?.” Journal of Law and Religion vol.25, no.1, 2009, pp.187-204. Web.

Ghamari-Tabrizi, Behrooz. “Women’s rights, Shari’a law, and the secularization of Islam in Iran.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society vol.26, no.3, 2013, pp.237-253. Web.

Pluralism is defined as an aspect that brings a bond that leads to a common society from all diversities. In the United States of America, there is a lot of religious diversity, but the relationships that exist among various faiths create a common society. The engagement among different faiths and their relationships leads to some instances of pluralism. The act of pluralism has enabled United States to manage its widening cultural and religious diversity (Dillon, 2003). It is evident that, several issues have been solved in America through the efforts of pluralism. For instance, it was a good show in San Francisco when a church and a mosque happened to purchase a piece of land and constructed their buildings side by side. Such incidences are very crucial even in minimizing religious wars and conflicts. Currently, there is the presence of interreligious infrastructures in major cities and towns. Interfaith dialogues, whereby interfaith thanksgiving services are held at manage such situations, handle challenges like war and hunger successfully.

The major reason as to why pluralism has become so distinct is that, pluralism calls for participation and engagement. The major practiced aspect of diversity in United States religion has brought the idea of isolation and separation among various denominations. This diversity and isolation call for an act of pluralism to avoid having so many disintegrated religious groups. Pluralism entails more than tolerance of differences, as many people perceive it (Netland, 2001). For it to succeed and be productive to all religious believers, pluralism should first gather the knowledge of all different groups. Tolerance sometimes may be misleading if considered by itself, without the knowledge of why differences are occurring. Tolerance alone does not create any opportunity of individuals to learn the characters of one another. Pluralism requires to eradicate the ignorance that exist among different individuals, and tolerance alone cannot afford. Although tolerance is crucial, it cannot be relied upon to combine diverse and complex religions like that of America.

In addition, pluralism is relativism and creates several opportunities for various religions to participate through commitments. Though embraced by most people, others still claim that it is weakening the religious beliefs of some people, through acknowledging different beliefs of other people. The fact is that, pluralism does not allow people to abandon their religious beliefs for others. The major theme of pluralism is to invite people from various faiths, and those without any faith to come together informing a civil society. This is achieved through ensuring personal encounter with one another and sharing on matters of importance (Dillon, 2003). Pluralism is majored in acknowledging one another on religious issues, but not through hiding the differences that exist. Pluralism in America is based on the common major rules that are found in the constitution. The free exercise of religion is allowed, and there should be no guarantee of a religion that should be established. The establishment of a pluralistic society is not aimed at achieving an agreement on issues of conscience and faith. The major theme of initiating pluralism is attaining a productive context of discussion and good relationship. The most valuable trend of pluralism is to gather people of different faiths, and have a common commitment to the people within the society.

Religious pluralism in United States entails a constructive dialogue of discussing the common issues, as well as the differences that exist among various religious groups. When conducting a pluralism dialogue, this does not guarantee that every issue on the table should be agreed upon. There are both agreement and disagreements, and the most important thing is to have an understanding of everyone’s ground. The foundational for pluralism is for every team be committed to having a one on one dialogue. Everyone values the act of pluralism, as it has managed to boost the moral values of people within the society (Dillon, 2003). The major issues that are likely to bring about some arguments among people are provided with a solution. Through this agreement, and coming together of people from various religions, the social welfare of people within the society is catered for. In addition, such incidences that require people coming together to handle like helping the needy in the society, various religions have managed to come together to solve such issues.

References

Dillon, M. (2003). Handbook of the sociology of religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Netland, H. (2001). Encountering religious pluralism: the challenge to christian faith & mission. New York: Intervarsity.

The liaison between religion and society in America has been exceptionally multifaceted. Though there are many religions in America, Catholicism is the most dominant of all. There have been many forces that helped to shape the face of Catholicism in America. One key element was the presence that Rome had been trying to exert in America. The other force that was instrumental in shaping American Catholicism was the American culture that was first dominated by Protestants than by principally secular forces. The third and the most important force that helped to shape the face of American Catholicism was the pluralistic nature of America. America as a country has had one of the most pluralistic ethnic communities to exist anywhere in the world. Immigrants like the Irish, Polish, Italian and Portuguese though professing the Catholic faith had opposing views on the same. (Williams 293)This posed a big problem to the Catholic faith and there was need to adopt a common ground to contain all these groups. This paper looks at how the Catholic Church has adapted to the challenge of religious pluralism in the American republic by modifying European notions of religious tradition. The paper does this by looking at different aspects of the institutional Catholic Church that have had to change to conform to American Catholicism. (Williams 424)

The challenge posed by immigrants to the Catholic Church in America was great to a point where the institutional church could not neglect it. As Williams puts it in his book, America’s Religions: From Their Origins to the Twenty-First Century “this vast in pouring of Catholic people into the United States during the nineteenth century, much of the attention of the institutional church was directed toward accommodating their needs.” (Williams 297) One such group was the Irish immigrants. The immigrants whom majorities were Catholic took up key positions in the church forming the largest number of clergy. One thing that set the Irish American Catholicism apart was the prestige that the institutional church enjoyed in the Irish American Community. The immigrants believed in the absolute authority of the Catholic Church making them put up arrangements that elevated them from the rest of the society. The Irish Americans viewed the Catholic Church as the only true religion and were less tolerant toward other religions. Soon after, German immigrants began arriving in America in large numbers. (Williams 294)

The German Catholics had a different view on religion from that of their Irish counterparts. The Germans were more tolerant toward other religions, unlike the Irish. In trying to preserve their tradition, the Germans refused to adopt Americanization, which their Irish counterparts had readily embraced. This made them begin using German in celebrating the mass, something that was not common in the tradition of the Catholic Church. The Polish immigrants who arrived a little time after this also insisted on using their own language in celebrating the mass. Both the Germans and the Poles insisted that the world was moving on in a new order and thus change was in order. Traditionally, the mass was conducted in Latin. However, in recognition of the aspect of American pluralism, Vatican II adopted the use of English and vernacular in conducting the mass. (Williams 62) This has been a big break from the past and is a clear demonstration of how European traditions have adjusted to fit that of the American Catholicism.

Another area where the European notion of religion has been transformed to fit that of the American Catholicism is in separation of the church and the state. In the past, the church existed on a nationalistic level and had a great say on many matters pertaining to the state. The American Catholic liberals saw the American society as benevolent and therefore agreed to separate the church from the state as was stipulated in the constitution. The institutional church was advocating for the building of church-sponsored schools while the liberals on the other hand were insisting that children should be taught in government schools since they did not contravene religious beliefs.

Of all the different schools of thought within the Catholic Church, the most significant was that led by John Ireland the Archbishop of St. Paul’s. Ireland had the backing of other influential people in the Catholic Church and together they formed a group that was referred to as the “liberals” within the Church. Ireland together with his group viewed the American Society as kind and therefore supported Americans in their endeavors as long as they did not contradict the church rules. The position of the liberals was however attacked repeatedly by the conservatives led by the Irish immigrants. The conservatives thought that by relenting on some doctrines held by the church, Catholicism would lose its influence.

In recognition of the contribution that the American Catholic liberals were making in the Catholic Church, it came to a point where Catholic intellectuals began to vindicate Ireland on the stance that they had taken in religious matters. According to these intellectuals, “their fellow American Catholics had developed a ghetto mentality that was insulating them from the good that contemporary society had to offer.” (Williams 302) After Vatican II, many changes were effected to match this critical attitude and conform to the new American Catholicism.

One area where the European Church traditions were modified to conform to the culture of American Catholicism was on the issue of penance. Traditionally, the practice was administered on a very personal basis. In this process, those seeking penance would kneel in a specially made box known as the confessional. Usually, this box consisted of screens that divided the priest and the penitent. This was meant to create an air of anonymity between the two. The priest would then order the penitent to offer a set of prayers or observe other religious rituals for the forgiveness to take effect. However, American Catholic liberals have over the years criticized this move as too impersonal. The Vatican has since modified this trend and today the practice takes place with the priest and the person seeking penance facing each other. Unlike in the past, emphasis is now placed on transforming people and not merely on reciting some religious incantations. (William 61)This is just but another mode of adaptation to cope with the challenge of religious pluralism brought about by American Catholicism.

Marriage is perhaps another area that has gone through a few notable changes in the Catholic Church. Formerly, upon entry into adulthood, a person was allowed to choose between joining priesthood and getting married. Any choice that one made was supposed to be a lifetime commitment. In the case of marriage, the union could only be terminated if the marriage was not consummated. However, over the years, this too has changed and both practices are in question. Grounds for divorce in the Catholic Church have now been extended to incorporate psychological disorders among other things. Today, many Catholics are obtaining civil divorces something that was unheard of in the past. Many priests are now leaving the church due to the punishment meted out to those who do not stick to the rules of the priesthood. These scenarios show some tolerance on the part of the church that is doing everything within its power to remain relevant in this twenty-first century. The most notable thing is that nearly all these changes were implemented to adapt to the challenge that American pluralism was posing on religion.

The pouring of immigrants of Catholic nature in America brought with it numerous challenges for the Roman Catholic Church. The church was forced to make some tremendous changes in order to adopt the new trends brought about by the pluralism of religion in America. These changes have been experienced in the whole world and as things stand out currently, more changes are on the way.

Works Cited

Williams, Peter W. America’s Religions: From Their Origins to the Twenty-First Century. 3^rd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008. Print.

Introduction

There are certain values that are esteemed universally. Moreover the different religions of the world are deemed to be in support of these values. These human values are several and comprise of such attributes such as peace, respect of human life and dignity, freedom of worship and speech and tolerance.

A human being is valued in the world and should have the right to justice and peace. All people have the right to security and legal recognition. Human rights ensure that the people are protected from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. As time has passed, there has been an increase in the different religions making it a religious pluralistic world. How do the different religions practice and adhere to these values? Are there times there are contradictions in the way people practice these values?

Family Values

There are times when religious pluralism in a country causes disagreements in the area of family life. In Australia, there have been Muslims who have desired a sharia court so that they can be granted divorce according to their religion. The national courts are able to give them divorce however they feel they are not adhering to their faith when they do not go to their own court.

Recently, human rights have touched on the freedom of one choosing who they will marry and giving birth. Previously the State had focused on the freedom of speech and expression but there has been conflict in the issue of same sex marriages and abortion especially when it comes to the teenage pregnancies and health risks in abortion.

There has been a shift or a change in the values esteemed in various states especially

when it comes to the family values. Traditionally there was a long process to be followed when one wanted a divorce especially in the Christian set up however the State made it possible for the people to be able to get divorce quickly. There are other contentious issues such as abortion and same sex marriages where the church and the people in other religions have not been in agreement as the clergy perceive the acts to be going against the Christian values (Lupu and Tuttle, 480).

In the traditional Christian set up especially the Catholic churches there has been the expectation that the people will value life and that is why there had been so many debates on abortion before certain countries legalised the process. There was concern that legalising same sex marriages would be a threat to the usual family set up where there is a female male relationship. As time has progressed, the pluralist religious views have caused many to greatly analyse and even question their beliefs when it comes to marriage, divorce and abortion.

It is therefore a tough call for the State to manoeuvre through all these viewpoints.

There are religious people who will not agree to oversee or coordinate same sex marriages or have anything to do it. However at the same time, there can be no discrimination or insensitivity towards these people of different beliefs as it would be going against the universal values of equality and freedom of expression.

It is therefore important for all the people to ensure that they practice the universal values otherwise they will find themselves arrested and paying damages.

Even as most people agree that peace is a great value, there are times that religious

pluralism causes a lot of conflict in the world (Gopin, 15). There have been disagreements and even serious civil wars and conflicts between the Christians and Muslims in African countries such as Nigeria and Sudan.

As much as different governments respect human rights there is also an increase in ethnic and religious conflict. When it comes to issues of religion it touches the core of the person and it gets highly sensitive. The people at times refuse to observe the universal views of human rights and freedom of expression all in the name of defending their religion. The question that remains however is what is more important, defending one’s religion or obeying the rules of the religion which advocate for peace and love with one’s neighbours?

Universal Values

In Islam, there is emphasis on the community and when the religious people teach the people the law, they emphasize that Allah looks at the community and expects the society to be just. The individual’s rights are protected under the society’s collective responsibility. In Christianity especially the protestant faith, an individual is responsible for his actions and is expected to be fair and just.

In the traditional Confucianism religion, the ruler is expected to take care of his subject and manage property matters. If he mistreats his subjects he loses the mandate to rule them which was given to him from heaven.

What about the freedom of worship and speech? In most religions there are certain dressings or ornaments that the individuals wear. It is not a matter of choice but it is an act of religious duty and obedience. The Catholics have the crucifix while the Muslim women have the hijab. In Eastern Europe especially France the wearing of religious symbols in public schools has been prohibited.

Lately, there has been intolerance, xenophobia and great fear towards Muslims. When they wear their religious clothes it is perceived to increase the risk of violence and threats that go against the democratic values and institutions of the State (Danchin, 6). There have been arguments against this view.

When a woman or man wears their hijab it does not mean they are extremists or fundamentalists or they are against the liberal institutions and processes of the state. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, there arose great debate on the issue of racial profiling in the United States as the people felt that the Muslims were being discriminated against and their privacy was being invaded.

The truth is that the people were afraid of their lives and they were concerned that the Muslims did not respect the universal human values of peace and harmony between the people.

If anyone had the highest probability to be a terrorist, he would be an individual of Middle Eastern origin who was a practicing Muslim. There were employers who were hesitant to employ people of Middle Eastern descent. Choosing to act on these feelings however would be wrong since one is not allowed to discriminate against others on the basis of their religion.

One of the universal values in the world is equality when it comes to opportunities. No one should be discriminated when it comes to what they desire to achieve in terms of their work and family because of their religion.

Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 9/11, the Muslim women’s dressing in

Australia has come to be perceived as a form of women’s subjugation instead of the expression of their faith. The French government has the view that wearing religious symbols may infringe upon the rights of others. The freedom of others to worship and express them would be adversely affected. The religious symbols may work to pressure people towards a certain religion. It may also be a channel for propaganda and provocation.

The government is also concerned about the women in the nation. It does not want the occurrence of any event where women and girls are discriminated against. The question however is whether wearing the hijab causes any harm to the girls or the society. They wear the hijab for their own private reasons.

Political Values

There are values that deal with man’s relationship with others. For leaders, more is expected as they are expected to carry out their responsibility well in the society. They are expected to be accountable and have integrity. These are values that are agreed on by all the people even in the face of increasing religious pluralism. The people are expected to live in peace and harmony respecting each other’s belongings and property (Spickard., 8)

There are people who view democracy as a value that should be upheld. In the countries where there are fundamental Muslims, they may perceive concepts such as democracy as a Western influence which they do not want to be associated with (Esposito and James, 428). There are those values such as democracy which may actually take time to take root in some cultures or religions. There are countries which do not want to be under cultural imperialism.

Even the most repressive cultures however realize the importance of human rights. However they do not want to practice the values under the Western human rights notion. They have chosen to use alternative philosophies of socialism and community development.

When it comes to ensuring that there is harmony and peace, the different governments have been trying to separate religion and the state. Religion should be regarded as someone’s private affair. This is what is known as secularism. It is liberal democracy that is regarded to be the optimal environment where equality can be observed (Norris and Inglehart, 40). However when religion is used as an excuse to attack other people or other countries, it is wrong.

In the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush spoke of the fight between good and evil and the way good has to triumph (Aly and Green, 5). There will be no tolerance for the fundamentalists, extremists and radicals who use Islam as an excuse to terrorize the nationals of a different country. The people of America whether Christian, Hindu or Buddhist stood to defend the sanctity of life. The nationalistic unity came to the front to ensure that human lives are respected.

Conclusion

With the rise in religious pluralism, there is increasing growth in secularism where the family values in the religious setting will not be practiced in the country by all the people. There will be a shift towards the universal and political values with a great emphasis on human rights as stipulated by the United Nations. Those religions that encourage contrary beliefs will have a hard time interacting with other countries.

Works Cited

Aly, Ann and Lelia Green. “Less than Equal Secularism, Religious Pluralism and Privilege” Media and Culture Journal, 11.2 (2008), 1-16. Print.

Danchin, Peter. “Suspect Symbols: Value Pluralism as a Theory of Religious Freedom in International Law” The Yale Journal of International Law, 33: (2008)1: 2-61. Print.

Esposito, John and James Piscatori “Democratization and Islam”. Middle East Journal, 45.3 (1991) :427-440. Print.

Gopin, Marc. “Religion, Violence and Conflict Resolution” Peace and Change, 22.1(1997):1-31. Print.

Lupu, Ira and Robert Tuttle “Same-Sex Family Equality and Religious Freedom”. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 5(2010): 275-305. Print.

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. “Uneven Secularization in the United States and Western Europe” Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism. Ed Thomas. Banchoff. UK: Oxford Publishers. 2006. 31-58. Print.

Spickard, James. “Human Rights, Religious Conflict, and Globalization – Ultimate Values in a New World Order”. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 1.1(1999): 2-19. Print.

Introduction

Chaplains are religious counselors and spiritual guides for army personnel and their families in the US military. Chaplains attend to the emotional needs of soldiers, improve their psychological well-being, heighten morale, and promote faith. Military clergy members perform rites and minister in their faith tradition but have a duty to provide religious support to anyone requesting it, regardless of their religion. It means that the military is a democratic and pluralistic environment. Religious pluralism is a policy of progressive societies that emphasizes an individual’s right and freedom to have and exercise any denomination, faith, or belief they want. It is vital to understand the impact of pluralism on a chaplain’s activities to provide ethical and unbiased religious support in a diverse community.

The Impact of Religious Pluralism on Chaplain Activities

As the US has a long history of being immigrant-friendly, modern American society consists of hundreds of denominations and cultures. From the law standpoint, the Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms to worship or abstain from worshipping. The First Amendment has two clauses that explicitly state that the government cannot establish a religion or prohibit religious exercise (The Bill of Rights: A transcription, n.d.). As a result, the US does not have an official faith. Moreover, religious diversity does not immediately make a society pluralistic, as pluralism implies that the community does not prioritize any belief or mix religions to a common denominator (Religious pluralism 101, 2019). Pluralism is expressed by a citizens’ mutual goal to protect and acknowledge every belief.

The reality of religious diversity in the US incites research and discussions on the topic. While doctrine does not prohibit plurality because it values freedom, compassion, and humility, there is a concern that pluralistic context may compromise a chaplain’s own faith identity (Cadge et al., 2020). The key to solving this issue is to build a robust theology that embraces pluralism but has a clear position on the chaplain’s identity and role as a particular faith representative. The other important topic is how a pluralistic environment changes chaplains’ activities such as ministry and counseling.

The US military chaplains represent numerous denominations but are all part of the Chaplain Corps. The idea behind this is to promote inter-faith and multicultural learning and make military chaplaincy open-minded and tolerant. Although it should work on paper, there is evidence of the opposite effect. William Payne, a navy chaplain, notes how he was amazed that most “chaplains he supervised in the Navy … were woefully unprepared … to serve in a pluralistic context” (Cadge et al., 2020, p. 193). Some military chaplains see plurality as discomforting, while others do not fully understand how pluralistic context affects religious support. There are several significant impacts:

1. Military chaplains ought to provide indiscriminate service.
2. They should view faith as a general concept, promoting not a specific religion but rather a religious psyche with a high level of spirituality.
3. Chaplains are free to minister their faith, but the learners need to accept the ministry willingly for it to be ethical.

Conclusion

Overall, these requirements can be briefly described as legalistic and ethical approaches to pastors’ work. In sum, pluralism is a modern and humane approach to declaring and exercising one’s faith. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the freedom of belief. However, pluralism is enacted by the close cooperation of religiously diverse individuals and communities to create a society that equally perceives and protects all religions. Doctrines do not generally prohibit plurality, but some chaplains may find it challenging to adjust religious activities to the pluralistic context. In the military, chaplains serve everyone indiscriminately, enhancing the mental wellness of military personnel through the promotion of spirituality and psychological-like counseling. Time and more evidence are needed to assess the full impact of pluralism on chaplaincy. For now, the pluralistic approach proves to diminish barriers between religions and aims to eliminate any religious conflicts in the era of globalization.

References

Cadge, W., Stroud, I. E., Palmer, P. K., Fitchett, G., Haythorn, T., & Clevenger, C. (2020). Training chaplains and spiritual caregivers: The emergence and growth of chaplaincy programs in theological education.Pastoral Psychology, 69(3), 187-208. Web.

The Bill of Rights: A transcription (n.d.). The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Web.

Religious pluralism 101(2019). The Aspen Institute. Web.

His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama also known as Tenzin Gyatso was born in 1935 in the family of simple farmers in Tibet. At the age of two he was discovered as the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama and his spiritual path began. In Tibet Buddhism, Dalai Lamas are viewed as the patron saints of Tibet. They are called the Bodhisattvas of Compassion. These enlightened beings do not start their nirvana by choice willing to serve the people and all other living beings in our world. The Dalai Lama received a special education and trained since the age of six to become a spiritual leader.

Today, His Holiness travels the world, writes books, gives lectures and speaks at seminars introducing the Buddhist values to the world and enlightening the modern society about the Buddhist truths. The Dalai Lama works according to non-violent beliefs promoting tolerance and compassion. In this paper I will explore the Dalai Lama’s views considering religious pluralism and argue that even though His Holiness publically accepts and appreciates the religious diversity in the world, according to John Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis, the Dalai Lama truly practices religious inclusivism.

Argument

The pluralistic hypothesis of Hick is based on the belief that along with all the multiple religions practiced in the world today, there is something all of them are trying to reach and experience, the ultimate divine reality, which Hick calls “the Real” (Module 7 1). This means that the Higher Power all of the world’s religions identify differently really is there, yet it does not match any of the descriptions presented by various religious leaders and teachings. This way, none of the existing religions provide a precise explanation of what “the Real” actually is; instead, they generate a variety of explanations of their own opinions and individual perceptions considering “the Real”.

This can be demonstrated with an analogy of a running man. When a group of individuals sees a running man, each of them perceives this man differently. Someone might imagine that the man just robbed someone and now is escaping, someone might think that the man is late and thus he is in a hurry, and someone might see this man as a jogger doing his exercise. None of the observers would actually know why the man is running, but all of them would have versions.

In his multiple speeches, interviews and addresses, the Dalai Lama shares Hick’s view considering the religious diversity. His Holiness often expresses appreciation of the variety of religions in the modern world. In his address at the inter-faith seminar held by the International Association for Religious Freedom called Ladakh Group that was conducted in Leh on the 25^th of August the Dalai Lama stated, “As a religious practitioner, I acknowledge the fact that different religions of the world have provided many solutions about how to control an agitated mind” (Religious Harmony par. 3).

This way, His Holiness admits that all of the religions of the world basically have the same purpose – to provide their followers with answers considering the life in our world and the righteous ways to live it. The Dalai Lama continued noting, “I always say that every person on this earth has the freedom to practice or not practice religion. It is all right to do either. But once you accept religion, it is extremely important to be able to focus your mind on it and sincerely practice the teachings in your daily life” (Religious Harmony par. 4). Stating this, His Holiness demonstrates his appreciation of freedom of choice when it comes to religious beliefs and inclinations.

The Dalai Lama agrees that all of the religions share the same basis – the idea of improvement of people, the way towards love, compassion, and respect. Dalai Lama maintains that there cannot be just one philosophy or religion since there is such variety of views and perceptions in the world, he is convinced that it is rather fitting that the various needs of diverse individuals are fulfilled with the help of religions of all kinds (Religious Diversity – H.H. the XIVth Dalai Lama par. 1). His Holiness disapproves of religious favoritism, emphasizing that it gives one a biased mind which drives us away from the perception of reality (Religious Harmony par. 5).

The last statement is where the disagreement between Hick’s views and those of the Dalai Lama occurs. The quote from the speech of His Holiness demonstrates that the Dalai Lama is convinced that the reality can be perceived by an individual with an unbiased mind, whereas Hick is sure that the reality of religion is unavailable to everyone. Apart from this contradiction, the ideas of Hick and the Dalai Lama seem rather similar, as both authors support the concept of religious diversity and equality in the contemporary world.

Participating in inter-faith seminars the Dalai Lama employs neutral concepts in his speeches to gain understanding of all of the members of his diverse audience practicing many different religions. The Dalai Lama addresses the notions that exist in every modern religion, and discusses the issues that challenge the believers of all cultures and countries.

The Dalai Lama stated that “In every religion, there are transcendent things that are beyond the grasp of our mind and speech. For example, the concept of God in Christianity and Islam and that of wisdom truth body in Buddhism are metaphysical, which is not possible for an ordinary person like us to realize” (Religious Harmony par. 8). The Dalai Lama also emphasized that there is a huge difference between “believing in one religion” and “believing in many religions”, these two actions contradict each other, and for one individual it is important to have a single refuge, sole religion, whereas for a society diversity is essential.

Objection

Providing all of the abovementioned pluralistic views, the Dalai Lama also states the following: “Liberation in which ‘a mind that understands the sphere of reality annihilates all defilements in the sphere of reality’ is a state that only Buddhists can accomplish. This kind of moksha or nirvana is only explained in the Buddhist scriptures, and is achieved only through Buddhist practice” (Dalai Lama 169).

This perspective immediately changes the impression of the teachings of the Dalai Lama and makes this spiritual leader an inclusivist. According to the last quote, His Holiness believes that the truths of Buddhism exist for the followers of other religions. This way, he tries to enlighten his audience considering the way he deems as the right one by means of speaking their languages and employing the notions familiar to the followers of other religions.

Response

In his work about religious pluralism Hick states that none of the religious teachings should be taken literally as they are imperfect. Of course, as a philosopher of religion and a theologian, Hick is obliged to theorize and argue about various religious concepts, develop non-standard perspectives and objective points of view. At the same time, the Dalai Lama, as a religious leader, does not have such option. It would be absolutely frustrating if His Holiness whose main purpose is to promote the Buddhist values and teachings stated that those teachings are not completely true, the Buddha was not actually enlightened, and none of the truths he promotes should be followed literally.

The Dalai Lama, as a non-violent religious leader, admits the necessity and inevitability of diversity, he teaches tolerance, compassion, and equality required to avoid conflicts, wars, hatred, and violence. Yet, as a religious practitioner, and a monk, who follows Buddhism the Dalai Lama cannot teach anything else but that the wisdom of Buddhism is the way towards enlightenment and the end of suffering. Religious inclusivism is half way between exlusivism and pluralism which exists balancing the aspects and features of both concepts without approaching to any of the extremes. This seems like the only right way of behavior for a religious leader promoting agreement, peace, and compassion for the whole world.

Conclusion

The 14^th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is a well-known public speaker who often travels and addresses multicultural audiences with the followers of various religions. His Holiness has a purpose to reach all of his diverse leaders, find understanding. This is why in his interviews and speeches he emphasizes the essentiality of religious diversity in a society and its necessity for the creation of a harmonious world. Yet, these statements should not be viewed as statements of pluralistic beliefs of His Holiness. The Dalai Lama emphasizes that he is a “simple Buddhist monk”, and he has a single religion which he is loyal to. This way, the Dalai Lama can be considered an inclusivist.

Works Cited

Dalai Lama. “The Bodhgaya Interviews.” Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes. Ed. Paul J. Griffiths. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990. Print.

Module 7. “The Pluralist Hypothesis: Hick’s Response to Religious Diversity.” Lecture notes.

Religious Diversity – H.H. the XIVth Dalai Lama. Daily Theosophy. 2015. Web.

Religious Harmony. Dalai Lama. n. d. Web.

In terms of modern practices, religions may seem outdated in the mindset of the general Western population, where scientific knowledge domineers. Some people may find religious rituals barbaric due to the influence of the modern skepticism agenda. It does not nullify the great impact religions still have on people. Religion is a complex concept, constantly changing, adapting according to time demands, and gathering followers. Nevertheless, it does not mean that all modernizations within religions go without any hindrance and that all religions are ready to face diverse modernity. In some of them, variety and pluralism are embraced, which in turn leads to inclusivity. Others struggle with reality and thereby causing radicalism and exclusivism.

Under the word pluralism, the general population understands diversity in the sense of the religions’ variety. According to Netland, this fact was not evident before 1492. The Western world was Christian, and homogeneous in terms of beliefs.¹ In the modern world, however, religious pluralism is an axiom not hidden by distances between countries. It manifests itself in languages before anything else. The English term ‘religion’ entails different meanings and connotations in other languages. Netland states, “The Sanskrit term normally used in these contexts is “dharma,” which can be translated into English as “truth,” “duty,” “law,” “order,” or “right”.”² Pluralism of opinions is evident even in the existence of different interpretations of one word.

Another concept, inclusivism, entails some old customs evasion for the sake of greater integration. In some religions, the such attitude was more distributed than in others. However, it always requires study and deep integration from a new member. Nevertheless, there are particular circumstances and interpretations of inclusivism in some beliefs. For example, Christianity implies that there is another path to salvation apart from the extolment of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.³ People who proclaim this view on the Christian faith are called inclusivists, and they face strong resistance from other factions. As many can see, inclusivism can imply free integrity, regardless of members’ upbringing and their potential involvement in the fundamental idea of the religion.

Exclusivism is a delicate matter in modern society because, in most cases, it implies discrimination and radicalization based on aberration from the religious norm. It can entail only one God’s complete faith or demand strict adherence to all religious standards. Sometimes, exclusivism tends to exclude only people who do not share the general ideas of the religion. Undoubtedly, it also means that a member of one religion cannot always be a member of the other one because their teachings are often mutually exclusive.⁴ Although, in the modern Western world, diversity and variety of opinions and beliefs are implicit, it does not extend to religions, where a person can only be a follower of one faith in most cases.

Some religious practices and rules can be set in stone, including rejection of people who do not share the same faith as the group and closed nature for the third party. Various religions exist in the world, and although people can observe pluralism, it does not mean that it extends to personal faith. Although some religions allow interpretations of their teaching and are inclusive in that sense, others are stricter and less lenient. Most religions are also mutually exclusive, meaning that a person cannot simultaneously be a follower of two or more religions. Albeit evolving, religions stay a cornerstone in our society, still having the power to either unite people or divide them based.

Bibliography

Harold Netland. Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age. Ada: Baker Academic, 2015.

Todd Miles. A God of Many Understandings?: The Gospel and Theology of Religions. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

Winfried Corduan. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Footnotes

1. Harold Netland, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age (Ada: Baker Academic, 2015), 9.
2. Netland, 13.
3. Todd Miles, A God of Many Understandings?: The Gospel and Theology of Religions (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 17.
4. Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 54.