Some modern teachers have stated that all religions are one, that they are all ultimately the same and all equally good. They look upon different religions as merely alternative ways to reach the same goal, as little more than different names for the same thing. This has caused them to mix different religions together, often with little discrimination. While their view is motivated by a sincere effort to bring about religious harmony and world peace, it has led to many distortions. Above all, it has gone against what I consider to be the real nature of the pluralistic approach.
In my opinion, making all religions the same is actually a denial of pluralism and can lead to another form of intolerance. Pluralism, in any field, doesn’t mean that all alternatives are the same, but that we have different choices, which may not all be good or equal. Having pluralism in food, for example, means that we can choose from many different types of food. It does not mean that all food items are of equal nutritional value or of the same taste.
Equating all religions as equal makes it appear wrong for religions to disagree with one another, even when their views are contrary. It can discourage authenticity in religion and lead to the blurring of different views of God, immortality, and the goal of life, as well as the ways to achieve these. Rather than honoring diversity in religion, it attempts to reduce this diversity to a vague identity. Rather than giving people a number of different choices in religion, it tries to make all these choices appear to be the same or inconsequential. By eliminating choice, it destroys freedom and inhibits inquiry and growth.
How would we make all religions equal? Would we do it on the grounds of monotheism, the belief that there is only one God? This excludes non-monotheistic religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism, as well as many native beliefs. Do we base it on the proposition that all religions must teach us to be good? What is said to be good in one religion may not be good in another religion. Like any other human cultural phenomenon, religion is so diverse that if we try to reduce each one to a common design, we will lose many ancient and beautiful traditions that lead to meaningful connections with the divine. For instance, what a travesty would it be if we reduced all art to a single standard of sameness, thereby destroying its richness of expression and vitality?
To me, religious pluralism means accepting religious differences. It doesn’t seek to reduce all religions to a common model. It lets their differences stand out as they are and doesn’t seek to cover them over with a veil of sameness. Pluralism says that it is fine for us to have different or even contrary views about religion and that this doesn’t have to become oppressive, abusive or violent. The important thing for us is to seek truth or God in the way that is most meaningful for us while not tolerating any forms of abuse or violence from any religion.
In this understanding, pluralism in religions doesn’t require that we reduce all religions to a common mold in which their distinctions disappear into an amorphous unity. It doesn’t mean that we have to practice all religions or bow down to all their leaders as great and holy. Pluralism means freedom. I think we all agree there should be freedom in the pursuit of the spiritual life, even if it allows others to arrive at a different understanding of truth than what we ourselves honor. This means that we should not bar people from changing their religious beliefs, nor should we seek to impose religious beliefs upon people by force, propaganda or recruiting. We should give people the space to discover the truth without our interference.
After all, as everyone keeps saying, the truth is the truth. If we allow people the freedom to discover what is real, they cannot avoid it. On the other hand, if we try to impose truth on people, what they arrive at will not be their own truth, their own discovery, but a mere doctrine or label. Truth is self-evident. The truth that fire burns does not require a religious sanction or political law to protect it. It doesn’t need a priestly order or a missionary effort to persuade people. We don’t need to use persuasion to make people believe that fire burns. We need only let them work with fire and discover what it is. The same is true of all the great laws and powers of both nature and the divine. Pluralism does not deny the unity of truth or the fact of cosmic law, but regards it as a matter of self-discovery and self-knowledge—not the indoctrination of a mere belief or opinion.
