pluralism religion

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”

Further went on to say —

“We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.


Part of a speech President Reagan from 10/26/1984

I don’t normally quote Reagan…

Whenever one comes to the the table for interreligous dialogue, there is what I would call an _ecumenical taboo_ that one has to comply with. The ecumenical taboo_ does not exist in a written document, but people tend to practice it around the dialogue table. One should not raise, for instance, such questions as gender justice, sexual orientation issues, religious constructions of the other, multiple forms of violence in a religious community, or religious cooperation with neo/imperialism. each religion has its own _history of sin_ that has justified and perpetuated oppression and exclusion of certain groups of people through its own religious teaching, doctrine, and practice. In order to be _nice_ and _tolerant_ to one another, interreligious dialogue has not challenged the fundamental issues of injustice that a particular religion has practiced, justified, and perpetuated in various ways. I do not disregard that most ecumenists have based interreligious dialogue on a politics of tolerance, and this has played a significant role in easing the antagonism between religions, at least among the leaders of established religions. However, we should ground an authentic ecumenism and theology of religion in a _politics of affirmation and transformation, rather than a politics of tolerance_.
—  Namsoon Kang
Religion in DID Systems

Alright. Bree here, figured i should touch on the idea of religion in systems. As always this is just the case in our system, and it shouldnt be considered the norm. Most of us follow different religions, so i will write them down and have the others say something about them.

Bree-Im a Helenic witch, which means i follow the Greek pantheon (Hecate in particular, though i do also worship the others). No i dont summon demons (much) and no i wont curse you (unless your a dick). 

Elanore-Hello, my religion is Protestant Christian. I have always believed this world required intelligent design and christianity explains it rather well.

Zia-Athiest as fuck. No proof for that other crap but dont shove it down my throats and i wont shove my beliefs down yours. So yeah. (PS Elanores a prude who wants to be a nun)

Bree here, we decided to not let Marcus front for reasons but he is a Gnostic Athiest.

So yeah, any questions? Send them to the ask box!

Also the way that Zizek effectively compares anti-colonialist destruction of European cultural hegemony to late-capitalism’s proliferation and commodification of identities…..those two forces are so directly opposed!! but of course he’s casting about for connections to defend his trash xenophobic thesis. 

Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function.

this is such idealist bourgeois nonsense.