We are all gay: In praise of Pluralism

[Front-Ranger]

I listened to a discussion yesterday on Talk of the Nation with the guest Eboo Patel, which was moving and insightful. Some of his comments seemed to have a place here. He was talking about religions, but any area of the human experience could be substituted, such as gay, straight, and all of the nuances in between. Here are a few of his comments from the transcript, which is here.

"I think that we need to have a different framework going into the 21st century. It's a pluralism versus extremism framework. There are Muslims who believe in pluralism. There are Jews who believe in pluralism. There humanists and Hindus and Buddhist and Baihais who believe in pluralism, and anybody who seeks to destroy pluralism deserves one label only and that label is extremist. And we should not honor them with the label of American or Muslim or Jewish, et cetera. We should just call them extremists and we should treat them as such."

[Front-Ranger]

Here is another of his comments:

"...some religious communities have the misfortune of having their public perception characterized by the worst people in their community.... I think that we saw this played out in the previous presidential campaign. I was aghast at the way that people went after Obama because of his Muslim grandfather, but I was equally aghast at the way that people went after Sarah Palin because of her Pentecostal faith and went after Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith.

In America there is no religious test for office, and in America bigotry or prejudice of any type should not be tolerated. We should be raising a generation of people, as Ryan just said, who have the knowledge base and the courage and the skill set to stand up against religious prejudice and say that's un-American. "

[Sheriff Roland]

and anybody who seeks to destroy pluralism deserves one label only and that label is extremist. We should just call them extremists and we should treat them as such."

wow!!

That's what I call an extremist point of view. Can't say I agree with this statement.

[Front-Ranger]

Please elaborate. Looking forward to your thoughts.

[delalluvia]

I think that we saw this played out in the previous presidential campaign. I was aghast at the way that people went after Obama because of his Muslim grandfather, but I was equally aghast at the way that people went after Sarah Palin because of her Pentecostal faith and went after Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith

I think some people targeted Sarah and Mitt (I do not include Obama because he was not the target and the people who did target him for 'his' Muslim religion were in error) because their religions are not pluralistic.  They are exclusive religions.  There is an in-group and an out-group.  They are, by their very nature, intolerant.  Worship like this, follow these rules or face the consequences.  Our country is still struggling under the restrictive laws enforced by similar religious beliefs.

So people who 'went after' Sarah and Mitt did so because they were for pluralism and not for extremists as Patel defines it.  You want pluralism in religion, you're only going to find it in eastern, pagan and Unitarian style religions.    

[Sheriff Roland]

Please elaborate. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Well, it's sounds intolerant of those views that are neither pluralistic, nor extremist.

It reminds me all to much of the Bush blunder, regarding the Afgan war ... "You're either with us or you're against us" (paraphrasing). The truth can be elsewhere.

People's view can be neither extremist nor pluralistic. Those are merely extremes on SOMEone's graph. There are points in between (like indifference, or mere acceptance-without-embracing different points of views). I think that there are many groups/opinions that are neither pluralistic nor anti-pluralistic. The quote jumped that staged and regarded anything that didn't embrace pluralism as anti-pluralism and therefore, extremist. I'd suggest that there are Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Christians (strange, Christians were not among the religious groups listed) that are neither pluralistic nor extremists.

[Front-Ranger]

Re-read the sentence you quoted, friend sheriff. It says, "anybody who seeks to destroy pluralism deserves one label only and that label is extremist. We should just call them extremists and we should treat them as such."

"anybody who seeks to destroy," not anybody who is apathetic or anybody who is wishy washy or whatever.

In his discussion, Patel specifically states that, while there are extremists in all religions (I would add: and all walks of life), the majority of people of all and no religions rever peace and have respect for others.

But in the US, this view is under increasing endangerment.

[Sheriff Roland]

Granted, I misread the original quote. Wouldn't that make the leaders of Saudi Arabia (and Bush, for that matter) extremist? Those that do not accept 'the gays', (or as Bush expected- 'those that weren't with us') are another kind of extremists? These people are not aware of their theocracy-ist extreme-ist point of view, but they are none the less out to 'destroy some aspect(s) of pluralism.'

Anyways, I still disagree that it's a jump from not being pluralist = wishing to destroy pluralism = being an extremist.

The quoted article just didn't include the first part of the equation, as though it didn't exist.

[Front-Ranger]

Is pluralism a synonym for diversity? I think so, what do you think?

[delalluvia]

Is pluralism a synonym for diversity? I think so, what do you think?

Not really.  Diversity is just that, diversity.  Pluralism means more than just diverse groups.  Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as:

a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state

IOW, a pluralistic society is diverse in nature, but the diversity is limited in practice.