Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism in the United States and other lands: a challenge for Baptists and other Christians in the
21st century: my paper concentrates primarily on prospects rather than retrospects for two reasons
Baptist History and Heritage, Wntr-Spring, 2001 by Alan Neely
E-mail Print Link First, I have dealt with this subject in a number of previous essays. Second, Baptists, like
other evangelicals, have given their primary attention to evangelism, missions, and personal conversion rather
than to irreligious dialogue and other non-evangelistic endeavors. By and large, Baptists have been far more
concerned with their responsibility to take or proclaim the gospel to all people, including the followers of other
faiths, than to study thoroughly or consider objectively what other people believe.
The problem of pluralism - "new religious pluralism" in the United States
2002 Voice Of Conscience Conversation To Address Religious Plurality In The...
Religious Pluralism in Democratic Societies: Challenges and Prospects for...
Seeking the religious roots of pluralism in the United States of America: an...
Scholars study Utah-style pluralism Until the last half of the past century, except for missionaries,
businesspersons, and government representatives, Baptists had little direct contact with peoples of other faiths.
After World War II, however, migration from-Asia and Africa to the West began to change the demographic
character of most predominantly Christian countries, including Western Europe and North America. The most
dramatic upsurge of Asians and Africans entering the United States, however, came after the change in the
immigration laws in 1965. And though no one knows precisely how many Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus there are
today in the United States, it is generally conceded that there are at least six million followers of Islam, a
million to two million Hindus, and a slightly lesser number of Buddhists. Moreover, these numbers continue to
increase, and the visible evidences of other faiths are all around us. You may be surprised to know, for example,
that the largest Baptist university in the United States, Baylor University, located in Waco, Texas, had in
their student body last year 72 Muslims, 68 Buddhists, and 67 Hindus, (1) a momentous change from a generation
ago.Unfortunately, if most Baptists have any knowledge of other faiths, it is academic or anecdotal. Southern Baptists
through the Interfaith Witness Department of the Home Mission Board did during the 1970s attempt some interfaith
dialogues. But during the 1980s, these efforts were dropped in favor of evangelism.
Given the fact that this country--as most countries in the West--is becoming increasingly multicultural and
multi-religious, how we Christians relate to non-Christians will determine whether we are able to live together
in a truly pluralistic society or whether we will become a tangle of competing, mutually suspicious, antagonistic
neighbors. Because of these possibilities, I want to concentrate on the future of Baptists and peoples of other
faiths.Three years ago I was invited to give the Scherer Lectures at the Chicago Lutheran Seminary, lectures
sponsored by the Theological Consortium composed of the Lutheran and McCormick seminaries, as well as by the
Chicago Theological Union. The theme I chose was the challenge of religious pluralism in North America. The two
lectures were subsequently published in the Lutheran school's journal, Currents in Theology and Mission 25
(April 1998).
In the first lecture, I addressed the question of whether genuine religious pluralism is desirable or even
possible in the United States. In the second discourse, I tried to allay what I consider to be instinctive as well
as incited fears about religious, cultural, and ethnic pluralism by accentuating the missiological possibilities
that a genuinely pluralistic context offers.This last September, I had the privilege of giving "the Baptist
Lecture" at Andover Newton Theological School in Newton Centre, Massachusetts, and it is the essence of that
lecture that I am offering here today. It is not, however, exactly the same because of things that have happened
within the intervening months. Today, I will focus specifically on Baptists and why the multiplicity and growing
numbers of peoples of other faiths in this country represent a particular challenge for Baptists. It would be a
mistake, however, to assume that only Baptists are challenged, and it would be a mistake to conclude that Baptists
in other lands do not face the same or similar challenges. Our roots are those of Christians and Protestants in
general, but we are also beneficiaries of a specific heritage from Congregationalists in terms of church polity,
and Presbyterians and Congregationalists in terms of theology. We are Congregationalists in polity and modified
Calvinists in theology, that is, most Baptists hold to a modified form of Calvinism. Moreover, migration in the
world today is as high or higher than anytime in history. Thus the incidences of peoples of multiple faiths living
in close proximity to each other is not diminishing. It is increasing.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_2001_Wntr-Spring/ai_94160922


Religion and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life, Vol. 1:
The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses
James Hitchcock
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Published by Princeton University Press and copyrighted, © 2004, by Princeton University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means
(including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the
publisher, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web. Users are not permitted to mount this file on
any network servers. Follow links for Class Use and other Permissions. For more information, send e-mail to
permissions@press.princeton.edu
This file is also available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format
Chapter 1
THE KINGDOM OF THIS WORLD
ONE OF THE INHERENT PARADOXES of religion is that most faiths enjoin a spirit of unworldliness, urging believers
to look beyond earthly possessions in their search for ultimate reality, while at the same time all religions
exist in the temporal order and can only manifest themselves through material realities. Hence organized religions
have usually been quick to secure their property rights, justifying this on the grounds that material assets are
necessary in order to witness the reality of the spiritual. Most civil cases in the American judicial system
involve disputes over property, and courts have perhaps been most comfortable when adjudicating issues that can
be quantified in terms of wealth. It has been the Supreme Court's consistent policy, almost always followed, to
ignore what could be called ideological issues in dealing with internal church disputes and to content itself with
applying ecclesiastical rules in the ways such rules were apparently intended. Property cases, while perhaps not
the most interesting or significant to arise under the Religion Clauses of the Constitution, were the earliest
and have been the most persistent. Religious bodies that claim broad autonomy with respect to their beliefs and
practices nonetheless submit to the civil law for the final resolution of otherwise irresolvable disagreements over
possessions. Disputes over church property arguably involve both the Religion Clauses, in that religious freedom
is potentially threatened if the government is called upon to intervene in religious disputes, and government
thereby risks taking upon itself the improper role of favoring one religious group over another. Property cases
have come before the Court in almost every era, however, and almost always at the behest of church members
themselves.


http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7861.html


Irish and Italian Americans

RFL: Reflections of an (Irish-Italian American) White Man on Dr. King's Birthday

Friends,
Race, gender and diversity have intrigued me for a long time. The thoughts I share are distinctly those of a
middle-aged white man. To women, people of color, gays or lesbians (or more enlightened white guys), these
thoughts may seem elemental. But, even if pretty obvious to others, it just seems that "us guys" need to do a
little of the work here, and this is my earnest attempt to contribute. As always, I much appreciate feedback and
discussion.
My personal story has intersected in major ways with our shared American story. In 1969 my progressive dad
(and hero) lost a mayoral election to Inkster's first black mayor. I was in 6th grade and Dad's loss was hard.
Thirty years later, my wife became Michigan's first female governor. I thrilled in her glory. My lips have
almost always given service to the underdog's view of justice. Sometimes, my hands and mind and heart have served,
too. I have almost always been "on the side" of women and people of color.
In our politically correct world, however, I, like most white guys I know, have wrestled a lot inside. Inside,
because speaking some of my doubts would expose me to attack, and I can hardly think of anything worse than being
called unjust. Indeed, if it's a choice between being called a racist (or chauvinist) and taking 40 lashes, I'll
take the lashes. So, I've laid low. In the arguments and debates that quickly and sharply become us vs. them,
there is no percentage in being "us." Cuz "us" (guys who looked like me) were the perpetrators. Who wants to
receive that anger? Who wants to take on that guilt? So, I have had to wrestle secretly, trusting friends
(black, white, and other) with my questions, doubts, and push-backs.
I have said mostly safe things. Things I believed, mind you, but safe things. Although these working conclusions
and commitments, too, may seem safe, they feel worth saying:
I have benefited nearly every day from being white, and most of the time benefited again from being a guy. Here's
how: people assume I've earned what I got, people (including police) don't expect me to be violent, don't think
I'm harboring anger, don't wonder whether I came from and have an "intact" family, don't worry when I move in next
door, or pre-judge my intellect. Similarly, people, like the marine at President Reagan's funeral, still assume
I, not my wife, am the Governor. I benefit all the time from privilege and unbiased -- if not high -- expectations
every day.
Like most Americans, I really want our promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to work for everyone,
and I hate that the field of promise is still tilted.If blacks, women or other aggrieved people are angry, I can
understand that. I will try to understand their experience. For example, when I think of what has been visited
upon the African-American families over the generations -- enslavement, break-up of the family, subjugation of men,
threats of violence, etc., I can certainly appreciate why some might feel pent-up anger. I would. I won't let my
desire not to feel guilty get in the way of understanding others and their feelings.I will move from guilt to
responsibility, from past to future. I will quit saying it wasn't and isn't so, and work to make sure it won't be
so.I will accept that because of our cultural programming, implanted in my weak mind, I will probably keep seeing
a woman as a woman, or an African American as an African American, or a Latino as a Latino, before I can really
see them as just them. Still, I will strive to see each as a unique individual, for whom ethnicity or gender
play one part in their identity.On the other hand, I will try to put the onus on me and mine to respect and
accept the traditions and culture that belong to them. I will not pretend that we are or should be color blind.
I'd rather have the richness of others' looks and language (who decides what is slang, anyway?). I'll enjoy
varieties of dress, music, faith, food and expression, rather than assume or imply that mine must be "the" norm.
I'll work to help move the dialogue away from blame-searching and win-lose discussions towards the rich
possibilities of full participation by the wonderfully diverse population of America. I hope you, too, share
that dream.
What's your understanding these days of gender and ethnic diversity in America? Are you an ally of those as yet
unable to fully live the dream? How could you do more in 2005?
In the spirit of Dr. King,
Dan

http://www.michigan.gov/firstgentleman/0,1607,7-178-24402_24558-108507--,00.html