|
In a message dated 7/29/2005 8:05:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, are you seriously saying that pluralistic and tolerant are not able to mutually exclusive? A society cannot be both pluralistic and tolerant? I've never heard tolerance offered in contrast to pluralistic. I've only ever seen them hand in hand -- we are pluralistic and tolerant of difference that comes along with being pluralistic. I guess I've missed something. I think that the sine qua non of toleration is that there is a predominant
thought or belief system, whether established by law as in England or existing
de facto as in post-Revolutionary America. Toleration means that
non-established or non-predominant systems are not the basis of entire exclusion
from the political and social life of the community.
Pluralism begins with a quantum difference; no one system enjoys
establishment or particular predominance. No other system of
thought/belief requires the permission of either the government or the
established/predominant system to exist and have its adherent enjoy full
participation in the political and social life of the community.
If I am in the ballpark on the definitions (and I haven't looked them up to
be certain), then Steve and I will simply have to disagree on the co-existence
of pluralism and toleration. On the other hand, the results, the
operation, of such societies probably look very similar on a day to day
basis. Canada under the crown and the United States, for example.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
