tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post3725145655793708073..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: The Problems and Promises of Religious PluralismPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-59588617008658425842013-05-10T15:13:36.387-06:002013-05-10T15:13:36.387-06:00Thanks for the comments--as well as for the sugges...Thanks for the comments--as well as for the suggested other readings, Trevor. I was aware of the dust up over the lack of humanists at the Boston Interfaith Service. I probably should have mentioned it, but I didn't want the post to be too long and full of asides. But it does, as I think you're suggesting, underscore just how heavy handed and expected the impulse toward interfaith dialogue has become.<br /><br />You're last sentence raises an important distinction we should perhaps keep in mind: 1) the benefits of interfaith cooperation, and 2) how and for what purposes that cooperation is marshaled. Is it possible to do the former without the latter? Perhaps the critical eye is reserved for the latter? Not sure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10762487595483265718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-77189780433609972812013-05-09T14:23:04.724-06:002013-05-09T14:23:04.724-06:00Migod, man, that sounds more like a May Day rally....Migod, man, that sounds more like a May Day rally. So it goes.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-90775812703173656852013-05-09T08:24:45.749-06:002013-05-09T08:24:45.749-06:00Thank you for this thoughtful post, Chris, and for...Thank you for this thoughtful post, Chris, and for drawing attention to the discussion between Patel and Hulsether. I agree that it is important to question interfaith discourse, especially in terms of power and exclusion. I am reminded of some of the essays included in <i> A Nation of Religions </i> (edited by Stephen Prothero) that discuss the problematic shift from a "Judeo-Christian" pluralistic framework to an "Abrahamic" descriptor that arose in the wake of 9/11. Several of the contributors to that volume noted the exclusionary aspect of such a shift (and detailed the responses from various non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim groups). Yet at the same time, the bulk of those essays paid little attention to the other questions that you and Hulsether bring up, questions of race/class/gender and other attributes that are bound up with religion in both personal identity and in one's social experience. The praising of interfaith cooperation as an unqualified good (and as a panacea for violence) can too easily draw attention away from these other factors; interfaith discourse can serve to essentialize others in terms of religious affiliation, even if that is what it tries to work against. This does not mean that interfaith discussions or efforts toward cooperation have no merit, but they certainly deserve a thoughtful critical eye, especially when called upon as a response to specific social problems.<br /><br />As an aside, another article at Religious Dispatches discussed the exclusion of non-theists/atheists from the Boston interfaith service, which raises similar questions concerning the place and effect of religious pluralism when it is put to work in the public sphere. Quite a bit to think about!Trevor Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09152840020978882789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-81569596256490767612013-05-08T16:22:11.994-06:002013-05-08T16:22:11.994-06:00I often wonder how "pluralism" is actual...I often wonder how "pluralism" is actually understood, as though it's synonymous with "diversity."<br /><br />I submit that the former seeks the highest common denominator, whereas "diversity" seems little interested in common denominators atall--save for tolerance being the highest virtue, a "neutrality" that's no more than an end in itself, by its very nature entropic, not constructive.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com