Do Religions Negate Societal Unity?

[Sha'irullah]

Many theologians now a days are speaking of religious pluralism as if the idea is new yet sadly it is not. The past centuries have taught humanity that we will kill over anything. We as humans find all of our society differences worthy enough to fight over and kill each other over.
The issue is that religion unlike political ideas allows no room for meaningful change or reform in short periods of crisis. For religions, change often means divine invalidation. Religions justify the most horrid of atrocities and permit children to be brainwashed and die for the sake of something that often times cannot be proven with objective evidence yet alone evidence of any kind. Religions clash and cannot mesh since their positions are built upon absolutes.
The clash between Communism and Capitalistic Democracies is short lived compared to the clash of Muslims and Christians or the Catholic Church and just about everyone else in the world. Religions justify violence and separation that is more radically different than political ideals or cultural differences.

Is Religious Pluralism able to maintain itself in a peaceful manner?
Is Religious Pluralism even capable of occurring?
Is Religious Pluralism a pipe dream that will only be attempted and fail badly as it has in the past? Should we give it another chance?

 

[technomage]

Name change! Wow! Such apostrophe! Need Doge smiley!



More seriously ... I think societal unity depends on the individuals within the society, and the culture of the society, far more than the religions. We have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, and ... a whole bunch of other people in the US. For the most part, we do pretty well ... though there is definitely room for improvement.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Name change! Wow! Such apostrophe! Need Doge smiley!

Why thank you! I am trying to bring apostrophes back in fashion

. The new name translates to Poet of God(Allah). I wanted to get a more religious name to break pace from using the same names on all my email accounts.

More seriously ... I think societal unity depends on the individuals within the society, and the culture of the society, far more than the religions. We have Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, and ... a whole bunch of other people in the US. For the most part, we do pretty well ... though there is definitely room for improvement.

A lot of our unity relies upon secularism and the lack of reliance upon religion though, which is an issue. If one party becomes to religion such as Republicans it ruins things for everyone. Thankfully the Bible Belt is being unbuckled(about time). People tend to use religions as excuses for anything and certain religions have no matured enough to realize the dangers of violence. The more peaceful religions become the more unimportant they are also. So to have religious unity you must become less religious and less dogmatic which is self refuting for the idea of religious pluralism.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm confused. I don't understand what you mean by "religious pluralism" here, because your questions make no sense to me. But that could be because I fundamentally disagree with many of the presumptuous and illogical statements made in the opening post.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm confused. I don't understand what you mean by "religious pluralism" here, because your questions make no sense to me. But that could be because I fundamentally disagree with many of the presumptuous and illogical statements made in the opening post.

Considering that religion has not gotten along in the past whether it be through general hatred of each other or even violence do you think religious pluralism destroys any society of either religion coexisting?
Religions have caused rifts in society like politics but religion tends to take matters up further in many cases although not always as frequently when compared to secular matters.
Even in the US Christians cannot just tolerate another religion, they must convert and seek religious dominion. This by default creates contempt from the other party.
Do you think by default religious communities cannot coexist without any significant pressure?

I myself say yes and that given enough time people of religious faiths will be able to get over their religiously installed ego and stop looking to religion as a dividing point. They will then find something else .

Take for example have you not noticed that as of now your political affiliation means a whole lot more than it did years before? Political affiliation means a lot now. Remember at one point people of other faiths where killed left and right by the Christendom powers. Now Christians just rant against other faiths. Considering that death has been reduced to ranting in most cases do you think that the ranting will stop and the hostility will end altogether?

 

[Quintessence]

Considering that religion has not gotten along in the past whether it be through general hatred of each other or even violence do you think religious pluralism destroys any society of either religion coexisting?

See, statements like this are why I'm really super confused what you mean by "religious pluralism." Religious pluralism is the contrast to religious exclusivism: all it says is that the religion isn't claiming to be the "One True Path" and all that nonsense. That kind of tolerance is the veritable opposite of destruction of society, and prompts coexistence. What you say doesn't make any sense, unless you mean something else by "religious pluralism." Hence the me asking what the heck you mean by that phrase. I'm getting the sense you really mean "religious diversity?"

 

[Sha'irullah]

See, statements like this are why I'm really super confused what you mean by "religious pluralism." Religious pluralism is the contrast to religious exclusivism: all it says is that the religion isn't claiming to be the "One True Path" and all that nonsense.

No, that is not the religious pluralism I am speaking about. Religious pluralism is when multiple religions coexist with each other. I am not even aware there is any other definition for religious pluralism.

That kind of tolerance is the veritable opposite of destruction of society, and prompts coexistence. What you say doesn't make any sense, unless you mean something else by "religious pluralism." Hence the me asking what the heck you mean by that phrase. I'm getting the sense you really mean "religious diversity?"

Sorry I did not clarify it greatly. I meant the "attempt to create a religiously plural society". I am only referring to the attempts and efforts for people to make religiously plural societies. Even societies that have a religious pluralism do not have a very peaceful coexistence.

So my question can best be rephrased as ...
"Can real and peaceful religious pluralism ever be possible?"

 

[LuisDantas]

Many theologians now a days are speaking of religious pluralism as if the idea is new yet sadly it is not. The past centuries have taught humanity that we will kill over anything. We as humans find all of our society differences worthy enough to fight over and kill each other over.
The issue is that religion unlike political ideas allows no room for meaningful change or reform in short periods of crisis. For religions, change often means divine invalidation.

Wait, what?

Such a religion can only be called malformed, and a failure.

Religion must know how to deal and be at ease with diversity if it is to be considered succesful at all.

Religions justify the most horrid of atrocities and permit children to be brainwashed and die for the sake of something that often times cannot be proven with objective evidence yet alone evidence of any kind. Religions clash and cannot mesh since their positions are built upon absolutes.
The clash between Communism and Capitalistic Democracies is short lived compared to the clash of Muslims and Christians or the Catholic Church and just about everyone else in the world. Religions justify violence and separation that is more radically different than political ideals or cultural differences.

Is Religious Pluralism able to maintain itself in a peaceful manner?

Of course, and in fact it is an indispensable component of stable peace in any society.

Is Religious Pluralism even capable of occurring?

Oh yes. And it is so very worthwhile.

Is Religious Pluralism a pipe dream that will only be attempted and fail badly as it has in the past? Should we give it another chance?

Blaming the victim, are you? I'm not sure why you even ask these questions, truth be told.

 

[Ingledsva]

Many theologians now a days are speaking of religious pluralism as if the idea is new yet sadly it is not. The past centuries have taught humanity that we will kill over anything. We as humans find all of our society differences worthy enough to fight over and kill each other over.
The issue is that religion unlike political ideas allows no room for meaningful change or reform in short periods of crisis. For religions, change often means divine invalidation. Religions justify the most horrid of atrocities and permit children to be brainwashed and die for the sake of something that often times cannot be proven with objective evidence yet alone evidence of any kind. Religions clash and cannot mesh since their positions are built upon absolutes.
The clash between Communism and Capitalistic Democracies is short lived compared to the clash of Muslims and Christians or the Catholic Church and just about everyone else in the world. Religions justify violence and separation that is more radically different than political ideals or cultural differences.

Is Religious Pluralism able to maintain itself in a peaceful manner?
Is Religious Pluralism even capable of occurring?
Is Religious Pluralism a pipe dream that will only be attempted and fail badly as it has in the past? Should we give it another chance?

Why not be Spiritual, rather then follow any religion's dogma?




*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's only the exclusivist religions that have problems getting along with their non-believing neighbors. You know which ones I'm talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many theologians now a days are speaking of religious pluralism as if the idea is new yet sadly it is not. The past centuries have taught humanity that we will kill over anything.

This is, literally, nonsense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Religions justify violence and separation that is more radically different than political ideals or cultural differences.

Is Religious Pluralism able to maintain itself in a peaceful manner? Is Religious Pluralism even capable of occurring? Is Religious Pluralism a pipe dream that will only be attempted and fail badly as it has in the past? Should we give it another chance?

I myself say yes and that given enough time people of religious faiths will be able to get over their religiously installed ego and stop looking to religion as a dividing point.

Apart from religions, there is the problem of living and life, the necessities of which over-ride religion. Many examples, India too is one. There have been conflicts but the need for each other over-rides religious differences. And these also occur because of politics or terrorism. We have lived peacefully (more or less) together for many Centuries. Religious pluralism is a fact. Even the Hindu party has Muslim candidates in the current elections. And the Kashmir parties (basically Muslim) have Hindu candidates. This is aptly illustrated by Bollywood (Mumbai film industry).

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Do religions negate social unity?

Some clearly do not, and indeed, PROMOTE unity, both social and religious (as well as of God)!

The Baha'i Faith is a clear example of this given that these three unities are its most central principles.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Quintessence]

No, that is not the religious pluralism I am speaking about. Religious pluralism is when multiple religions coexist with each other. I am not even aware there is any other definition for religious pluralism.

Yeah, pardon about that. In what little formal coursework I've had on the subject of religion, one of the topics covered was the notion of religious exclusivism, religious inclusivism, and religious pluralism. So when people say "religious pluralism" my mind immediately goes to that set of concepts, not religious diversity.

Sorry I did not clarify it greatly. I meant the "attempt to create a religiously plural society". I am only referring to the attempts and efforts for people to make religiously plural societies. Even societies that have a religious pluralism do not have a very peaceful coexistence.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. My own country is the most religiously diverse nation on the planet. We haven't had a civil war since the late 1800s, and that war wasn't even about religion. The places I notice that have the most warring conflicts over things are those which have a high degree of a certain kind of religion, which Saint Frankenstein nails on the head in a later post.

So my question can best be rephrased as ...
"Can real and peaceful religious pluralism ever be possible?"

Yes, and it already exists and is the norm in many, many places across the globe.

It's only the exclusivist religions that have problems getting along with their non-believing neighbors. You know which ones I'm talking about.

Pretty much. Any social organization that is dogmatic and authoritarian is going to have that kind of effect, regardless of whether or not it goes under the header of "religion."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every sociology, psychology, and anthropology class I have taken and every book or article I have read shows that religion is indeed a very strong force of social unity. There has not been a single culture that has been discovered that doesn't have it. While some religions do blatantly promote and condone horrible acts, it is of importance to remember religion is just like any other idea. It, in and of itself, is harmless. It can also be metaphorically compared to any tool, such as a hammer. A hammer when on a table is just a hammer, it's doing nothing. But when picked up by some it will be used to construct marvelous feats of architecture, some will barely manage to put together a solid house, and some will pick it up to be used as a weapon.
Some religions promote we are all gods children, some promote inclusion, some exclusion. Sometimes religions do not really even give a damn about what other religions and people are doing.
And then there is a larger problem, and that problem are th men (with a few women, but mostly men) who desire above all else wealth and power. These are the types who will use religion as a means of social control. But these types will generally use whatever cultural view that is required to gain control. Such as, a dictator in a mostly atheist nation will generally maintain social atheism to reduce the chances of further social upheaval and dispute.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Every sociology, psychology, and anthropology class I have taken and every book or article I have read shows that religion is indeed a very strong force of social unity. There has not been a single culture that has been discovered that doesn't have it. While some religions do blatantly promote and condone horrible acts, it is of importance to remember religion is just like any other idea. It, in and of itself, is harmless. It can also be metaphorically compared to any tool, such as a hammer. A hammer when on a table is just a hammer, it's doing nothing. But when picked up by some it will be used to construct marvelous feats of architecture, some will barely manage to put together a solid house, and some will pick it up to be used as a weapon.
Some religions promote we are all gods children, some promote inclusion, some exclusion. Sometimes religions do not really even give a damn about what other religions and people are doing.
And then there is a larger problem, and that problem are th men (with a few women, but mostly men) who desire above all else wealth and power. These are the types who will use religion as a means of social control. But these types will generally use whatever cultural view that is required to gain control. Such as, a dictator in a mostly atheist nation will generally maintain social atheism to reduce the chances of further social upheaval and dispute.

I am exclusively speaking of inter-religious relations and the set of religions we have now. Ancient pagans just continuously adopted foreign gods when they felt like it, Greece is a perfect example along with the Semitic tribes of old. But the set of religions we have no are not like this anymore, the 2 major religions we have now clash at the very core of political, social and religious ideals. Hinduism stays on the side and gets bullied by both parties while the Buddhists do their best to stay out of all affairs.

So many divisions in the world we have today can be as a result of religion or perpetuated by religion. America is a religiously plural society but we declare war on Muslims, literally. We despise another culture so much that being of a different religion makes their society worthless and gives us the right to steal their stuff(primarily oil). Americans hate Saudi Arabians as much as possible yet smile if we get an oil deal from them and others countries do the same.

We have plenty of religious pluralism in this day of age but because we have turned religions into corporations and international monopolies we are moving backwards in time. Have you even paid attention to the issues in the UK? The religious pluralism in that part of the world is not exactly working out for the better.

 

[LuisDantas]

We have plenty of religious pluralism in this day of age but because we have turned religions into corporations and international monopolies we are moving backwards in time. Have you even paid attention to the issues in the UK? The religious pluralism in that part of the world is not exactly working out for the better.

I haven't heard of it. Can you tell us a bit about that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am exclusively speaking of inter-religious relations and the set of religions we have now. Ancient pagans just continuously adopted foreign gods when they felt like it, Greece is a perfect example along with the Semitic tribes of old. But the set of religions we have no are not like this anymore, the 2 major religions we have now clash at the very core of political, social and religious ideals. Hinduism stays on the side and gets bullied by both parties while the Buddhists do their best to stay out of all affairs.

We do have those two with some members waging violent wars, but there are also those from all three Abrahamic faiths that do not fight each other. Back when I was a neo-Pagan, the Pagan book store I use to hang out at was co-ran by a Christian woman who had absolutely no problems with people of other religions. The UU is another modern example of religions that don't care if someone worships god by a different name.

So many divisions in the world we have today can be as a result of religion or perpetuated by religion. America is a religiously plural society but we declare war on Muslims, literally. We despise another culture so much that being of a different religion makes their society worthless and gives us the right to steal their stuff(primarily oil). Americans hate Saudi Arabians as much as possible yet smile if we get an oil deal from them and others countries do the same.

Americans have also hated Catholics, Jews, Irish, Mexicans, and pretty much just about any other immigrant group and any non-Protestant group. Actually, plenty of cultures have hated groups that are not assimilated into the main-stream culture.

We have plenty of religious pluralism in this day of age but because we have turned religions into corporations and international monopolies we are moving backwards in time. Have you even paid attention to the issues in the UK? The religious pluralism in that part of the world is not exactly working out for the better.

Honestly, whenever I read about religious or cultural pluralism in Europe in general (especially from Germany), these articles are usually from white-supremacists or from religious groups that are either slightly leaning or fully blown extreme. Or there are alot of absurd demands. I've heard of British offices insisting that non-Muslim employees refrain from eating lunch in the office during Ramadan to not offend Muslims, and France banning religious head dresses is uncalled for. But America also has its nut cases who believe all Muslims are out to get them.
The best solution really is to just let people be themselves and interact and mingle with each other. Sure there will be some disputes and arguments, but most people will look for the similarities in others to base relationships off of before they look at the negative. And keeping groups seperated only assures that people will believe more falsehoods about the groups they aren't interacting with, and it will make positive interactions more difficult.

 

[Sha'irullah]

We do have those two with some members waging violent wars, but there are also those from all three Abrahamic faiths that do not fight each other. Back when I was a neo-Pagan, the Pagan book store I use to hang out at was co-ran by a Christian woman who had absolutely no problems with people of other religions. The UU is another modern example of religions that don't care if someone worships god by a different name.

I live in California so when religions get along they get along but when they don't it is bitter. I am not far from a masjid, mandir, JW church, 4 synagogues, and a block away from a Baptist church.
I get to see inter-religious interactions a lot and the primary factor I notice is age. The younger the person the less they care about inter religious interactions. The older the person the more bitter or even hateful they are towards people of other faiths.

Americans have also hated Catholics, Jews, Irish, Mexicans, and pretty much just about any other immigrant group and any non-Protestant group. Actually, plenty of cultures have hated groups that are not assimilated into the main-stream culture.

That has always been the case then afterwards we move on to the next enemy .

Honestly, whenever I read about religious or cultural pluralism in Europe in general (especially from Germany), these articles are usually from white-supremacists or from religious groups that are either slightly leaning or fully blown extreme. Or there are alot of absurd demands. I've heard of British offices insisting that non-Muslim employees refrain from eating lunch in the office during Ramadan to not offend Muslims, and France banning religious head dresses is uncalled for. But America also has its nut cases who believe all Muslims are out to get them.
The best solution really is to just let people be themselves and interact and mingle with each other. Sure there will be some disputes and arguments, but most people will look for the similarities in others to base relationships off of before they look at the negative. And keeping groups seperated only assures that people will believe more falsehoods about the groups they aren't interacting with, and it will make positive interactions more difficult.

The issue I see is that some groups are problematic and not as willing to mingle as others. This is often how propaganda wins as it builds upon subconscious fears and stereotypes

 

[LuisDantas]

I have a hunch that the issue may not be so much religious diversity as the larger dilemma between the often conflicting goals of dealing with plurality of stances while being in love with the potential attainments of an united people, Sha'irullah.

It is certainly not something to slight.

The way I see it, there are no shortcuts. Our societies have made a point of "growing" in certain directions without properly dealing with the social sustainability of those goals for too long a time, and it is (finally) coming back to bite us.

The bad thing is not so much that it is happening as that we have neglected the need to address that problem for so long. It has grown too large to ignore.