A "We are the world"-Esque delusion that is both undesirable and impossible.
Hym "Pluralism requires the religions to be transformed into something they are not. If the religions are resistant to the change that pluralism requires will inevitably be disempowered. Either by the state or the communication networks. It's at that point you have a hierarchy of religious dogma, backed by the state and communications networks, and it's going to elevate the religions that more closely align with your progressive sensibilities above the religions who do not. What you are suggesting is nothing more than liberals controlling the religions with soft power from the outside in a
way that allows them to deny their own culpability. What happens to the Muslim fundamentalists who think gays should be thrown off buildings? What happens to the Christian fundamentalists who object to
abortion on religious grounds? They both take a backseat to the other religions that allow your
liberal bullshit pluralism to dictate (from the top down) which religions can accrue power. Your pluralism IS the precursor to the hierarchy you condemn. And that was my initial criticism of the
Atheist pluralists. 'The religions would be
fine if they believed what I believe. I should be the God. As long as the religion is promoting my progressive
politics then it's
fine.'
You want the moral authority for yourselves. You're trying to dress it up as this benign thing and it isn't. So no. No pluralism. The only solution to religion is to create a system that is impervious to and unaffected by believe. You can have your little incest
cult and you can have your
liberal politics but I, as an individual, do not have to lend any credence to your religion,
don't have to do what your God says, and to discriminate against me or transgress upon me for doing so is a violation of my religious liberty. We need to get this subjective prescriptive behavior out of
people's lives and turn society into an input/output mechanism where
people can contribute independently from and regardless of their beliefs and receive output commensurate with their contributions. So, if THAT is what you mean by pluralism, then
fine. But it doesn't sound like it. Maybe I'm missing something. Additionally, focusing on Hindu voices when speaking about Hinduism is just a way of preemptively undermining dissent against Hinduism. I can just as easily say that we should prioritize dissent."