Religious pluralism involves accepting the beliefs taught by religions other than your own as valid. It implies that there is more than one kind of ultimate reality and/or truth and therefore more than one religion can be said to have the truth (way to God, salvation).
“Religious Pluralism is the view that all religions are equally valid as ways to God. Pluralists often refer to the fact that, just as there are many paths up Mt. Fuji, so there are many paths to God. Differences among the religions are superficial; they all lead to the same goal. This is the epitome of tolerance and relativism.”- Rick Rood.
“Pluralism is an affirmation of the validity of every religion, and the refusal to choose between them, and the rejection of world evangelism….”- John Stott, Anglican theologian.
“I think that the current notion of religious pluralism is stupid….The stupid concept is the idea that all religions are basically equally true. That is just flat out stupid.” - Gregory Koukl
“Many people today confuse traditional Western religious tolerance with religious pluralism….the latter assumes all religions are equally valid, resulting in moral relativism and ethical chaos…” - Robert E. Regier & Timothy J. Dailey
Religious Pluralism by its very nature is a foolish concept that has no validity. Every religion cannot be right, it is simply impossible. Jesus is either the divine Son of God or he is a finite human who was not God but simply a good teacher but he can’t be both God and not God, it is impossible and yet people want to take all the religions in the world that have completely contradicting beliefs, make a false claim that they are all valid and they all lead to God and then magically expect everyone in the world to see how logical and intelligent that is.
The following comments are from an excellent article written about Religious Pluralism. It is in response to another article that was written on January 27, where a Muslim thinker said something that sounded religiously pluralistic and people responded to it in the L.A. Times , Friday, February 10.
“As usual, I’m amazed at how frequently very sensible and intelligent people can make very foolish and absurd statements about the nature of truth…This person is commenting that the nature of religious knowledge is merely relative, not absolute. That’s what the Muslim scholar said, and Edward Tabash, who is writing this letter from Beverly Hills, agrees with him. Religious knowledge is merely relative. However, Tabash’s statement itself is a statement about religious knowledge, making it merely relative, not absolute, according to his own rules. See the problem there? In other words, here is an absolute statement about religion that says one can’t make any absolute statements about religion. The argument commits suicide. ” -Gregory Koukl
Gregory Koukl goes on to talk about the statement that all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute?” Koukl says, “Either God exists, or He doesn’t exist. It is the law of excluded middle. Either God or no God. One of two categories. One or the other has to be true. They both cannot be true because of the Law of Non-contradiction. Not at the same time. And they both can’t be false because of the Law of Excluded Middle. Simple. Either God exists or He doesn’t exist.
Did you notice, by the way, that both statements are religious statements? Now, maybe I don’t know which one is true, but I’ll tell you one thing, one of them is, which means there is such a thing, at least to some degree, as absolute religious truth. It is either an absolute that God does not exist, or it is an absolute that He does. One or the other. Therefore, it is a false claim that all religious statements are merely relative. Do you see that? This is not that hard. Here is a scholar, though, making a comment that is just absolutely foolish.”
Anyone who holds the idea of pluralism cannot argue its case without contradicting themselves. Koukl gives another example of that as he talks to a man who was accusing him of being hatful for telling others they are wrong, “Lee, a Jewish man, was reprimanding me in a very terse way for promoting the Christian idea that Christianity was true and all other religions were false. What was wrong with that? This view spreads hate, he said.
He said, “We shouldn’t criticize other people’s religions.” I said, “Then why are you criticizing mine?” He said, “It’s wrong to say other religions are wrong.” I said, “Then why are you saying my religion is wrong?” He said, “You’re encouraging hate by saying only your view is right and others are mistaken.” I said, “Then why are you spreading hate by publicly reprimanding me saying that only your view is right and mine is mistaken?”
Do you see how these arguments are self-defeating? And how this second version of tolerance is just silly? In order to tolerate somebody and be loving you can’t assert your point of view as being correct.”
These are some short excerpts from the transcript of a commentary from the radio show “Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. To read the full article click here. It is certainly excellent and I recommend that you read it.
I spent an entire year in a class called “World Citizen” learning the art of critical thinking. We learned how important it is to think critically and to “question everything and hold on to the good.” If you take two different religions such as Christianity and Islam and you do exercise critical thought about them you will see the contradictions and the problems and you will come to the point of knowing which one is worthy of belief. Pluralism and relativism simply encourages people not to use their brain. It encourages them not to think through the issues and not to think critically about conflicts or problems but just to except it all. Why is it that pluralism encourages people not to think at all? Doesn’t is seem strange that it encourages people not to seek truth?
“Isn’t it unusual that this view encourages people never to assess the truth value of their religious claims. It’s saying, don’t think about those things, don’t criticize, don’t say somebody is wrong. If you buy that, then you can’t criticize even the assessment of your own spiritual claims. Yet at the same time these are the folks who fault Christians who they think are blindly following the Bible. Religious truth claims must be challenged if we’re to have any confidence whatsoever that they’re true. If the truth claims of Christianity can be challenged–as they constantly are by these same religious pluralism devotees–why can’t the truth claims of other religions also be challenged? It seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Hmmm, maybe it is because in the end there is only one that can even stand up under critical thinking. That is because there is only one true religion, one true God, and one true savior.
I think this is the point Rev. Franklin Graham was making as he called Islam an evil religion. The politically correct want to make sure that they do not offend anyone so they accept religious pluralism with open arms and Graham certainly stood up to that by crushing the very idea of pluralism. Is it right to stand up and say that other religions are evil in front of people? Is it right to stand up and say there is only one truth, one religion, one God, and one way? I certainly think so. Isn’t that what God did when he inspired his own holy book? All other beliefs that are contrary to the words of the one true God are in fact evil so it is right to make that claim. I am willing to say that even God believes Islam is an evil religion, why, because it is contrary to His word. God hates sin and he hates false religions and he hates the claim that there is a plurality of ways to heaven because it directly contradicts His own words to us. There is only one God, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and there is only one way to the one true God and that is Jesus Christ the divine son who died and rose again.
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” (John 14:6)
Jesus is simply the only way and the only truth and all other claims are in fact evil because they lead people away from God not to Him. The idea of pluralism is a foolish attempt to distract people from finding the real truth by claiming truth to be relevant and therefore emphasizing the uselessness of critical thinking.
Pressed
ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THIS POST
There you go again.
What did Jesus want his followers to tell people? Be righteous, be meek, be pure of heart, be a peacemaker, be merciful. (Matthew 5:4-10) These are the things to which I was referring when I said that I agreed with the concept of christianity (and was then textually crucified). Can people be those things without believing in your “one true god”? Should we follow the example of Jesus and love those who hate us, or follow the example of Rev. Graham and spew hatred about those who disagree with us?
For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. Didache 6:2,3
Posted by: Rob on April 23, 2003 05:10 AM
your opening sentence:
‘Religious pluralism involves accepting the beliefs taught by religions other than your own as valid.’
this type of statement has no regard for the truth or openness of mind and could have been said by any type of fundamentalist, be that christianity, jewish or islamic. it presupposes that the only valid worldview is that of your own. this position is at best annoying for the rest of us, and at worst, deadly.
doctrine is not your god. seek the truth, dont label it before you understand it. listen carefully.
and above all remember the new commandment: love your neighbour as yourself.
Posted by: dave on April 23, 2003 05:24 AM
If you take two different religions such as Christianity and Islam and you do exercise critical thought about them you will see the contradictions and the problems and you will come to the point of knowing which one is worthy of belief.
And then you choose that for YOURSELF. Why do you feel the need to tell everyone else that they are wrong and you are right? Can you both be right?
Posted by: Rob on April 23, 2003 05:26 AM
No. Both can’t be right. How can two religions that teach different things about the nature of God both be right? God doesn’t conform himself to the wills of people. That wouldn’t make him much of a god, would it? I realize that there are areas in life that allow for compromise, but there have to be some absolutes.
Any proclamation by Christians that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life” is not an attempt to badger people or cram religion down their throats (although some come across this way). I look at it like this: if I discovered a cure for cancer, would I keep it to myself or water down my message? Of course not. In the same way, we have a “cure” for a sickness. Why would we want to water that down or mislead people by saying that this might be one of the ways?
I will agree with rob on one point. That is, that people must choose for themselves what path they want to follow. I can neither make the decision for someone else nor can I force another to make a decision. All I can do is keep telling people what I firmly believe to be the bona fide truth and hope that they accept it for themselves. If they don’t, that is their decision.
Posted by: le renard subtil on April 23, 2003 10:10 AM
Thank you thank you thank you for posting this! I have a paper due next week on religious pluralism and this helped more than you know. Must be a God thing…hehe. I want you to know that I agree with you 100%. I will prolly post another comment as soon as I get my paper done!
Posted by: erin on April 23, 2003 11:13 AM
No, both cannot be right. There is only ONE TRUTH and ONLY ONE WAY TO GET TO HEAVEN. That would be through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Michael on April 24, 2003 03:25 PM
OK, thanks Michael. Hmmm…very persuasive. :-/
Is it possible that you could be wrong? Is it possible that Islam is the ONE TRUTH? Is it possible that there is no truth? It’s all a lie?
Peace.
Posted by: Rob on April 24, 2003 03:31 PM
yeah, i wish michael would write more. i have a problem with Christians who say stuff like that but then they don’t explain anything why. most people in the world want some\a lot of proof if they’re going to make a decision which they’re going to base the rest of their life around. telling someone “There is only ONE TRUTH and ONLY ONE WAY TO GET TO HEAVEN. That would be through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” isn’t going to convince anyone. oh well. if you want to hear some reasons on why i am a Christian and why i believe that Christianity is the best option, i can give them to you, but i’m not going to shove them down your throat.
it could very well be possible that we all are wrong. i don’t know what really will happen at the end of the world. i just don’t. the Muslims could be right, the Jehovah’s Witnesses could, etc. nobody knows. in the meantime, i’d like to have some kind of code with which to live my life by and some sort of higher purpose for living. in my opinion, christianity is that. of course, i could be very wrong, but i’m hoping that i’m right.
Posted by: joseph j. fell on April 24, 2003 05:59 PM
franklin graham erred tremendously. i was so mad when the pentagon allowed him to speak at the pentagon. if he wanted to dispel the idea of religious pluralism and express his dissatisfaction with it, he sure did it in the worst way possible. there are many ways to make a point, and he chose one of the worst ways possible. consequently, christianity gets further tarnished and marred in society, and those of us who are non-judgmental, non-shove God down your throat christians get a bad name, misunderstood, and wind up having to debunk the Christian-as-jerk myth prevalent in society. not only did franklin graham make world evangelism even harder, he made it harder in the usa too.
Posted by: joseph j. fell on April 24, 2003 06:05 PM
Joseph Michael didn’t have to write more because it had already been said in this post, in the post before, and in the comments and there is no need to say it again. As for shoving things down peoples throats it is time for you to shove a sock down your own throat and shut up. I write what I want to write and no one forced you to come here and read it. If what we do is called “shoving it down peoples throats” then the very fact that you come to my site and make the same claims over and over again means you are shoving your junk down our throats and there is no difference, you do exactly what you say you despise. The only difference is you are on the other side of the fence.
Franklin Graham may have erred in his timing and in what he did, but what he said certainly wasn’t wrong. I am glad that the pentagon still allowed him to speak, they did the right thing.
Posted by: Pressed on April 24, 2003 06:54 PM
Yes, joseph this is the perfect place to tell people because like Craig said if I didn’t want to read about it I can just stop coming here.
Shoving it down someone’s throat might be a teacher in front of a captive audience, a legislator putting his religion into secular law, someone knocking on my door at 9am to tell me to accept his god, or someone using every conversation to tell people how she was “reborn.”
And, joseph I think that you have the right attitude about religion. I think that is a personal decision.
Posted by: Rob on April 24, 2003 08:16 PM
The only time personal opinion is not going to count is in the end. We can sit and ponder all the different religions and we can have weak convictions about our own faith and say “well it may or may not be right and the God I claim to serve may or may not be real” but really personal opinion will be worthless when it all comes down to the end. Even if a man is a devout muslim and beleives whole heartedly that he has done the right thing all of his life, in the end if in fact Jesus Christ has came and died on the cross, the man will suffer eternal punishment and seperation from God if has not accepted Jesus. Why? Because God’s word says so… not because people say so, not because some dude knocked on his door, but because the ‘God-breathed’ scripture says it.
God does not change because of the opinions of man and his word is not based upon the opinions of others. Certainly personal decision is your own and you have the right to choose what you want but choosing what you want doesn’t make it right. Only God can determine what is right, wrong, and where we will be in the end. Face it, we don’t have control because in the end it is God who has the last say and no matter of personal opinion or decision will change that.
“Well if God has the last say then it doesn’t matter what we do, we need to just do what we are able then…” - Not true. That is why God gave us his word so that we would know what is right and wrong…
I believe that Christianity is the best option and is the right way, but you may not beleive that, and that is fine, you can beleive what you want. If my convictions and revelation is correct and there is a God who sent His Son then all that I have said will come to pass according to scripture. Yes in fact that means that all people who have practiced any religion and have not accepted Jesus will in fact be seperated from God in eternal torment according to scripture. If it isn’t true and there isn’t a God then I will just go away and it will not matter anyway and maybe those things won’t come to pass, but I believe by my own personal experience with Him that God is real and true.
Posted by: Pressed on April 24, 2003 09:28 PM
That is very scary thought that nobody knows what will happen when we die or when the world comes to an end. I can tell you that I do know what is Truth and what will happen when I die. I am going to heaven. I talk to the real living God many times a day. He has proven Himself to me over and over again. The reason I don’t right more is that dicussing this for the most part is not going to change your mind or anyone elses One thousand years from now this blog will be long gone and this discussion will have meant nothing. What does matter is what a person does with Jesus.
Posted by: Michael Morgan on April 24, 2003 09:59 PM
Joseph, Rob: How can you not spread the Gospel? Was it not Jesus that said “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Christians are commanded to spread the Gospel. We shouldn’t force people to listen, but if we confess Jesus as our Lord and Savior, how can we deny the last command He gave us before He rose to heaven?
Now, I guess you could argue that another religion is the “true” religion. I think that would be incorrect. But there can only be one true religion. Look at it this way: when I drop a brick on somewhere on Earth it will either fall or it won’t. It can’t sometimes fall. Through the laws of nature we know the brick will ALWAYS fall under the same conditions.
How can different religions be true? How can, for example, Allah and YHWH both be true God? They conflict… they are different. Now, for the sake of argument, let’s say you could harmonize the differences. What about Hinduism? Brahman is “neti, neti”… not this, not that. If the Abrahamic religions have a God that can be known, how can we harmonize that with a god that can not be?
Eventually you get to the point when only one is true. If you’ve found the one that is true, why then would you stand there idly while the world condemns itself?
-Tim
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 24, 2003 10:13 PM
Tim, I am not christian, but I take your point.
Let me ask you this: can 2+2=5?
Posted by: Rob on April 24, 2003 10:37 PM
Hi Rob, sorry, I started out writing to Joseph and then realized that part of it was a response to your message. I should have fixed the first part. 
Anyway… can 2+2=5? Only if I can’t add.
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 24, 2003 11:04 PM
tim.
i am more than happy to share the Gospel when the situation presents itself. i do indeed seek out opportunities to share my faith with people and to discuss the ways in which God works in my life. if it comes up in conversations, i do not hesitate to discuss\share my faith. yes, i do pray for opportunities in which to do this. for example, i wrote a paper about religion being taught in schools and when i presented it, i said, “i am a Christian, however, i have no problem with learning about other faiths.”
however, i am not “pushy”, or at least i try not to be. i look at it this way; the words will have the most success and greatest effect on people who want to hear them and who are open to what you have to say. there are 24 hrs in a day, 7 days in a week, and 365 days in a year. i believe it is far more productive to spend time building relationships with people who are open to the Gospel rather than prosletizing to people who are neither going to listen to nor consider what you have to say.
Posted by: joseph j. fell on April 25, 2003 12:19 AM
joseph, who are you to say who will listen and who won’t? Can God not prepare hearts of people we talk to without us haveing to build relationships with them? Don’t get me wrong I think building relationships is a great idea and a wonderful way to evangelize, and certainly it is good that you do that but it isn’t the only way. There are plenty of people that I have never met before or even talked to before who were open to hearing the gospel. There may be 24 hrs in a day, 7 days in a week, and 365 days in a year but how many thousands of people die every single day without Jesus and without ever hearing the message? Certainly relational evangalism is a good thing, but it should never be the only way we share the gospel.
When I go to someone and begin to talk about the gospel if they say they don’t want to hear it or they are not interested I say ok well thanks for your time. I don’t grab them, tie their legs down and stand in their face forcing them to hear something they don’t want to hear. When I go door to door and the person doesn’t want to talk about it then I do not kick their door down and hold them at gun point forcing them to hear the message. When I type a message on my blog I don’t grab people and force them to read it. I simply present the message and they choose whether to hear it or not, whether I know them or not. That is not shoving the gospel down their throats and that is not being pushy no matter which way you try and twist it. I respect their own free choice to not hear it if they don’t want to.
But to say that you know for a fact that people are not going to listen or consider your words just because you have not spent time building the relationship is simply untrue. First of all it isn’t your word that changes people, it is God that changes hearts and you cannot know who God has prepared to hear that message. It could be someone you are becomeing friends with or it could be some stranger you meet at wal-mart but that isn’t for you to decide. As a Christian we are simply supposed to share the message, “preach the word, be prepared in season and out.” How can they believe if they do not hear and how can they hear if there is no one there to tell them and how can there be anyone there to tell them if no one shares because we are to worried about offending them or sounding pushy?
Posted by: Pressed on April 25, 2003 12:44 AM
Tim, no problem.
So you agree that 2+2 cannot equal 5. But can God make 2+2=5?
Or, to use your example, if you drop a brick and it falls to the ground and pick it up and drop it again can God make it not fall?
Posted by: Rob on April 25, 2003 02:47 AM
Craig, what about christian groups that don’t proselytize or evangelize? Quakers and mennonites come to mind. Are they wrong?
I have a friend who spent her spring break a few years ago building a house with Habitat for Humanity, and, while the experience was good, she said that she would never do it again. The reason? Non-stop proselytizing and attempts at soul-winning.
She happens to be Roman Catholic and the group sponsoring the trip was a campus christian group. She dreaded lunch breaks and the end of the work day because every person needed to share his story of rebirth and told her how she was going to hell unless she “personally” accepts Jesus.
Posted by: Rob on April 25, 2003 03:18 AM
And she chose to reject that. Fine, that is her choice. What is the point in continuing this conversation? We have said the same things over and over again.
Why do you ask about the Quakers and mennonites? I don’t want to sound rude and if you have questions I certainly want to answer them but I am not seeing the point at this time because you know what I have already said and I have to wonder why do we have the same conversation over again if you know my answer already? Yes they can do some good works for people and they can help people but if they don’t know Jesus they will not spend eternity with God. The point has been made. If you don’t want to accept it as truth then don’t. If you want to have a problem and get bent out of shape about people that shair their faith then fine that is your right, just like it is their right to share their faith if they want to. Can God stop a brick? If he wants to. Why? Because he created the laws of nature and he can certainly break those laws. In fact the laws of nature have been broken before.
Sure some people can make mistakes and can offend people by sharing their faith but to make the assumption that everyone who attempts to share the gospel offends everyone who hears it is ridiculous. Truth is if some one is hardened to the word it isn’t becuase another person shared their faith, it is because they were already hardened to it. That is why they get offended.
Posted by: Pressed on April 25, 2003 09:59 AM
Joseph: I have no “problem” learning about other faiths either. In fact, one of my favorite activities is comparative religion. I like knowing more about other religions as well as the various “cults” that have sprung off Christianity. There are lots of good reasons to understand other religions… (1) my faith is strengthen when I compare other religions, see what they say, and realize that “yes, once again, I can see why Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.” (2) In the spreading the Gospel it is helpful to understand who it is you are reaching out to — to be able to explain the points that are of most interest to the listener first.
So, I’m with you to a point. I’m not so sure world religions should be taught in schools, especially K-8, however. And it is difficult — where do you draw the line? It sounds very good and nice and kind to include information on Islam, Hinduism, etc. But then what about Wiccans? How about Satanists? The “Christian Identity” followers (very scary!!!)?
Further, if you accept that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light and that no one comes to the Father except through him, do you really want your future children being taught about why they should become Wiccan? To say the least, I have mixed feelings about teaching religion in schools, because I’m sure we’d go way to far.
Anyway, before I digress… I don’t think rejecting pluralism requires one to be “pushy.” I think what Pressed described is far from “pushy.” All rejecting pluralism does is allow us to say “yes, this is right and I need to make sure everyone who is willing to hear will hear the Gospel.”
Religion is one of the only places where we accept that multiple mutually exclusive “truths” can be true. One can take a decision to realize that there are false “truths” and become a really obnoxious fellow but they can also become really great evangelists…
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 25, 2003 10:56 PM
Rob: yes, I believe the creator of the laws that cause 2+2 = 5 can bend or break those laws. But I seem to be missing your point?
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 25, 2003 10:58 PM
timothy r. butler:
look at the influence which world religions have had on not only world events, but also the cultures and traditions of individual nations. learning about world religions is crucial to understanding those areas.
students would not be taught that they should “become” a certain faith. that violates the First Amendment’s separation of church and state clause. the government or any public figure cannot tell students you should become this faith or that faith without violating that and bringing major trouble upon themselves. whether the faith is buddhism, islam, christianity, or anything else, teachers cannot endorse or knock a specific faith. they would simply say: “this is how Christianity started, this is what they believe, etc.” the same would go for Islam.
regarding the question about wicca, i really dont have an answer for that. sooner or later, due to the vast diversity and # of religions in the world today, an antire course could be constructed on different religious systems. picking and choosing is a tough business.
Posted by: joseph j. fell on April 26, 2003 03:04 AM
Rob: yes, I believe the creator of the laws that cause 2+2 = 5 can bend or break those laws. But I seem to be missing your point?
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler
My point:
Look at it this way: when I drop a brick on somewhere on Earth it will either fall or it won’t. It can’t sometimes fall. Through the laws of nature we know the brick will ALWAYS fall under the same conditions.
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 24
Anyway… can 2+2=5? Only if I can’t add.
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 24
Religion is one of the only places where we accept that multiple mutually exclusive “truths” can be true…
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler
I think you made it for me.
Posted by: Rob on April 26, 2003 05:06 AM
I still don’t get it, Rob. Call me stupid. Now, the point I made about mutually exclusive truths was not saying I agree with that, but disagree with that.
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 26, 2003 02:01 PM
Joseph: I agree that it is a good thing to inform people about the world religions, as I noted, however it is a very careful business one is embarking on when doing so. For example, the California school system had public outcry against it last year when its course on Islam and other religions required people to “act out” parts of the Islamic faith. Generally political correctness causes such attempts, as this one did, to get almost to the point of promoting other faiths, while making Christianity look much worse… in this case Islam was presented sorta as fact while Christianity was presented more as myth.
I also think it is important to reserve such teaching until later in a child’s school “career.” Ideally, the child should already be at the age where he can (and hopefully has) made a decision reguarding his faith. Jewish and Christian tradition would put that age at 12-14.
The thing to consider, however: maybe this is something that is better left to parents or the Church to discuss with their children.
Whatever the case, the last part is the tough part: where do you draw the line. If schools teach only a few religions (say the three monotheistic western ones), isn’t that a ACLU lawsuit waiting to happen?
Posted by: Timothy R. Butler on April 26, 2003 02:35 PM
well, yeah. i don’t condone endorsing ANY religion in public schools. when i teach, i will say i am a Christian if it comes up in the discussion, but i’m not going to stand up in front of the class on school time and give my testimony. does this mean that after school, i wouldnt be the faculty advisor for a school Bible study? no. cause that’s after school, what i do after school is my own business. i wholeheartedly endorse the spread of knoweldge about religion in order to help people understand why certain historical events occurred. the idea of teaching ABOUT faith should be endorsed, and educators should be responsible enough to be as objective as possible with their instruction ABOUT religion. if anyone\anything is to be focused on, put the focus on the educators, not the system.
this is going to start a big debate about the role of the parents and who is right and who is wrong, but your idea about parents or the Church discussing religion with their children ONLY scares me. here’s why. i went to catholic schools. the entire history of protestantism was presented in a pretty negative light. i have been in sunday school classes at my church (baptist) and catholicism has been presented in a pretty negative light (which is the reason why i quit helping with sunday school)…lord knows Bob Jones University does a stellar job of that. i have a bad fear that if religion was left up to parents…Christians would portray other faiths as bad\evil, etc, Muslims might do the same about Christianity, and so on. i mean, come on, if you’re a Christian, you want your kids to be Christian too, you dont want em to check out Islam, Buddhism, etc and start questioning Christianity. the problem with this is when these people meet Muslims, Buddhists, etc for the first time, they’re going to have these negative preconceived notions in their mind about what these people are like (i.e. all Muslims hate america, etc), which is going to lead to massive cultural conflict and problems. my experiences so far with humanity regarding religion don’t give me much room for optimism. however i hope that in an academic setting people might behave a bit more responsibly, especially people who didnt have a personal stake in the matter.
regarding the age thing, here’s my 0.02 about it. we live in a diverse world, and with the advent of the Internet and more accessible mass media, it’s easier to come into contact with things foreign to you. Christian kids can look up the Muslim doctrine if they want, jewish kids can learn about Taoism if they want, and Muslim kids can learn about Sikhism if they choose to do so. if kids want to learn about something, they will. it’s that simple. my brother is 8, and he knows about how to find out all sorts of stuff in ways i never would have dreamed when i was 8. anyhow. i think it’s much better for religion to be presented in a as much bias as possible-free academic setting than them having a firsthand introduction to it from a biased source.
please realize that i am not anti-Christian. essentially, all i want in life is for people to make up their OWN minds about stuff. it disgusts me when people force other people to ascribe to a certain faith or believe in a certain way. i am all about presenting the fact to people and saying, okay, make a choice from what’s there. given a reasoned and careful comparitive study of religions, i believe that Christianity will emerge as the faith which makes the most sense and which offers the most hope for the future. you probably do too. or else, we wouldn’t believe in it.
yes, drawing the line is a world-class problem. i think if the focus was on tying the way in which religions relate to culture, it’d be a bit harder to prove the case for teaching about Wicca, Satanism, etc. those religions havent had massive impacts on society of historical significance. i suppose i’m looking at this from my viewpoint; if one who practices those faiths posted on here, they very well could have a different idea of how things are. of course, there could very well be a court battle. i dunno.
Posted by: joseph j. fell on April 27, 2003 12:06 AM
Add A Comment