1. It has often been said, referencing a study that showed that people from Sweden were the least religious in the worldand people from India the most religious, that we are a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. This “values” separation between the ruling elite and the masses is hopefully beginning to close, but at the moment it does fuel separation, as groups turn their backs on a civil society that appears to undermine their beliefs.
2. I was interested in the statement that conservatives often confuse pluralism with relativism. I think this is quite true and well put. I think many conservatives would find, as I have, that if that sat down and had a conversation, that they have more in common in outlook with a devout conservative Muslim or Jew than with many wishy-washy secular Christians. That’s not to say that aren’t huge differences between the faiths. I take to heart what Maseo Abe, a Buddhist who specializes in interfaith dialogue, once wrote: To him, people of different faiths need to join hands to combat the growing secularism of the world community.

I look forward to silently watching the direction this post takes. It’s a complex question, that begs once again at the health of the worldview, biblical as it seems, of the average Christian today (by average, I do not mean that all are the same, but rather that most swim in a Western 21st century soup).

I think many conservatives would find, as I have, that if that sat down and had a conversation, that they have more in common in outlook with a devout conservative Muslim or Jew than with many wishy-washy secular Christians. Very true, Dianne. And Liberal Christians, Jews and Muslims even more so

I would add re: pluralism vs relativism that both liberals and conservatives exacerbate the situation by insisting on attributing the opinions of others to bad faith rather than genuine differences of opinion. This insulates us from having to work to understand another’s point of view since we already know that it’s not legitimate; it’s just a front to make evil intentions appear more acceptable. When no one is willing to understand the other side’s point of view, then neither side is able to address the legitimate concerns of the other in a constructive way. It’s a formula for making sure that we can not find common ground or deal with real problems.

{{Liberals, Guinness contends, speak too ?airily? and conservatives confused pluralism with relativism.}}
I recently posted about what neo-Calvinists have called “Principled Pluralism.”
Conservative bristle at the word “pluralism” and equate it with relativism. But a healthy Christian perspective on civil action is to honor that we live in a pluralistic society.
“Governments have the high calling to uphold public justice for all people living within their territories…
The state itself is but one institutional community among others in society. The American republic, as a political community, is part of a diverse social landscape that includes families, businesses, schools and colleges, social-service organizations, and much more…
Government should recognize and uphold the diverse organizational structure of civil society. Government should not treat human beings merely as individual citizens; human beings also exist as family members, faith-community members, economically organized employers and employees, and in dozens of other capacities and relationships. “Principled pluralism” means that government is obligated to do justice to society?s nongovernmental organizations and institutions as a matter of principle…
Finally, “pluralism” means that there should be constitutional recognition and protection of religious life in society. Principled pluralism means that government should give equal treatment to different communities of faith. Government should not have the authority to decide what constitutes true religion. Therefore, government should not try to establish one religion or to enforce secularism in public life.”
-quotes from James Skillen, President of The Center for Public Justice. Follow the link above for more.

I suppose this post would be the best place to put this link since the Mohler comment opportunity has closed:
http://www.liveasif.org/view.cgi?type=w&list=20060928002
I guess for one “over the top,” this is not too surprising.