Isaiah Roman

Pluralism and Relativism

Where pluralism becomes moral relativism as it is in the post modern society today in religion; it spells disaster.  It destroys all barriers of social morality; there is suddenly nothing immoral; therefore anything, no aberration of the mind, can be forbidden.  The Charles Manson(s), Jeffery Dahmer(s) and other mass murderers or rapists cannot be castigated because there is no foundation for judging them; therefore, nothing is forbidden them by the very laws that are legislated to protect society from them.

They cannot be blamed because without established morality there is no basis for remorse in the mind of such people.  It is not their fault; it is the fault of society.  Without morality then there are no taboos; torte lawyers are unrestricted to run amok and create havoc solely for notoriety and financial gain.  Wealth and power have moved to the top of the judicial food chain.

Moral relativism i.e., all truth is relative  [all systems of morality (religions) are relative to time place and person] is similar but different from moral pluralism.  Pluralism, all religious belief systems are equally moral and deserve equal respect in reference to whatever truth each professes and teaches.  It is politically incorrect to disrespect anyone lest his  tender psyche suffer irreparable harm.

Every religious group has non-negotiable characteristics.  All religions are in one or more instances exclusivist; each has those things that apply to it alone and all other religions are in error.  It is the atheist that presses dialogue toward moral relativism and pluralism.  It justifies his belief and validates him in the claim that there is no supreme being. [It is strange; but, denying God is tantamount to admission that He exists].

Agnostics are more or less fickle; the statement “I don’t know,” “I am just not certain,” or “I’m, searching for truth” releases them from forming a difficult decision and excuses them from embarrassing questions that arise.  It makes “fence sitting” respectable and comfortable.  “He that stands for nothing falls for anything.”

Truth itself is exclusivist; if a thing is not true then by default it is false.  When truth becomes pluralistic it is hopelessly incomprehensible; therefore, it is relative only to the person who is speaking.  One might call that an oxymoron.  Truth then becomes like noses everyone has one and some are indescribable and not pretty to look at.

Exclusivist; Christian examples:

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.  Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.  Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it” (Isaiah 45: 5-8).

“Thou shall have no other gods before me.  Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shall not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.  Thou shall not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.” (Deuteronomy 5: 3-7)

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.  This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4: 10-12)

The Jew or the Christian in no wise seeks by force to prohibit those that disagree with them to disbelieve.  In America everyone is free to believe or disbelieve whatever he chooses if he is ready and/or willing to accept the consequences.  The Christian lives to point out the consequences when asked and not before.  They are required by a covenant with Jesus Christ (God) to take a stand according to scripture but condemn no one.

They are forbidden by commandment to refrain from derogative statements or harm to those that do not agree.   They believe they are bound by covenant and the character of God “to speak the truth in love.”  Those that hear are free to receive it as a free gift or reject it as of no benefit to them.  God does not hold his people responsible to succeed only to be faithful to speak His truth.

The Jews are to treat strangers according to the law of God (Exodus 12: 49).  Christians are governed by what is taught in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew chapters 5-6-7; esp. Chapter; 5: 43-48)

Biblical definition of Faith: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  For by it the elders obtained a good report.  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews chapter 11)

Biblical examples of faith: “…Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. [Examples] By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.  By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.  By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.  Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.  Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. (11: 6-13)

It is an exercise in futility to claim one is a Jew or a Christian without belief through faith that God has revealed Himself to mankind.  At different times God made covenants with men and made promises.

Through creation of the earth and the universe in which it exists, the law, the prophets, the Jewish nation itself and His Son born of the house and lineage of David; there is ample proof in the universe of a Creator.  Jesus proved himself God’s Son through his birth, his life and his death on the cross for the sins of the world.  God revealed Himself also through The Word of God written in the heavens, the Logos (God in the flesh) and the written word, the Bible.

“Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.”

It is obvious to the most casual observer this leaves the field wide open to speculation.  There are no fixed guidelines or rules for determining social actions.  The reining power whether it be a governing body or a popular social force of whatever persuasion can establish mores for the rest of the nation perhaps the world.  It is as if each person may choose what is socially accepted.  Is there any wonder that a Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, or Jeffery Dahmer is free from remorse?

Where relativism is the order of the day under that definition how can a society protect itself mass murders, adolescents randomly killing their peers in a school shootout, young boys and girls kidnapped randomly, sexually assaulted and murdered.  It may be compared to a sports even with no ground rules, time limits, boundaries or goal lines.  But then public schools, places of higher learning and etc., are heading toward eliminating grades or other means of governing student accreditation for excellence.  Attendance of class alone seems to qualify them for a diploma or certificate of completion.

Is there any wonder why children are matriculating without being qualified to compete in the market place for jobs and advancement once they obtain employment.  Business and industry find it necessary to provide training once gained in schools before employees are qualified for positions they offer.

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.

Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.

Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.

Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments.

—(Diana L. Eck; Harvard University)

Again it seems there is a wide range of possibilities that appear upon the horizon drawn by these guidelines.  The one thing in common with both relativism and pluralism is a lack of established authority for either other than man made authority.  The reining authority seems to be a form of relativism and pluralism in charge of both.  Everything is relative to time place and person or persons in charge.  In a socialist or collectivist society the ruling political party establishes the authority.

The polit bureau or people’s congress, as it were, in a democratic socialist society is supreme.  The state controls everything.  A Stalin, Lenin or Hugo Chavez, for that matter, becomes the state and the state owns everything including the souls of its citizens and the training of its youth from birth.

The reigning religion, and humankind is by nature innately religious, is secular humanism.   Any exclusivist religion must be neutralized or eradicated.  All religions are exclusivist at some point.  Even those that must eliminate exclusivism are exclusive in that regard.

It is impossible to rule a large mass of humanity by committee.  Dictatorship becomes the only way to achieve any socialist stability.  There must be no higher authority to challenge the elite ruler.