Diana Eck Pluralism

1883 Words8 Pages
Diana Eck and Russell McCutcheon have two vastly different understandings on what pluralism is to be defined as. Eck sees religious pluralism as the understanding that multiple, “authentic” religions can exist peacefully in a society¬–where all voices are allowed to be heard and is “more than mere tolerance.” (Eck 2006) Meanwhile, McCutcheon criticizes religious pluralism as merely rhetorical, suggesting that pluralism is ultimately an impressionable ideal–a hopeful thought about the way we understand life and that “tolerance is a virtue of the powerful.” (2001:164) Eck’s understanding of pluralism suggests the idea that every religion is interested in understanding one another; in a perfect world this may be true. On the other hand, McCutcheon’s idea is more realistic. He understands that most people have little interest in understanding…show more content…
This group would be allowed to “speak at the table” because they are open to understanding all religions and wish others to do the same for them. They practice tolerance and are apt to sharing ideas and understanding with the people of New York City; they wish not to impose their faith but to improve the understanding of it. On the other hand, McCutcheon would say that the placement of this group in an American pluralist society would simply not work out because of his impression that pluralism argues minority religions would have to obey the ground rules of the dominant religion in America. McCutcheon’s understanding of pluralism and tolerance would lead him to argue that the majority of religions have the capability and willingness of tolerating this specific group but have no intentions on fully accepting them to be a part of their pluralist society due to the minority aspect and what a vast majority of America jumps to conclude about the Islam

    More about Diana Eck Pluralism

      Open Document