A Message from God
God's passion for you, it's all about you!
God Warns America Index
President Bush, Iraq, Patriot Heroes & Troops:
Our forefathers would applaud!
United Nations, Davis Recall Plot, BlessedCause impacts in
Politics & Whose groping Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Spirit of the antichrist
alive and well in California schools
Stand up against Sex Ed Porn in public school
Archive News Coverage of Islam in Public Schools
ACLU and NEA Teachers Union
Free Original Christian Art, Music & Sculpture
The Sign of Jonah explained,
God's message is heard
Islam Induction in
our Public School Textbooks
actual words of Houghton Mifflin exposed and
Quotes of Quran,
Hadiths, Koran about infidels
BlessedCause Footwashing Ministries
Hearing God & Personally
Free Original Christian Art, Music & Sculpture
How Clinton, ACLU wrote Religious Guidelines & U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton
to all vets, our troops and military! God BLESS and lead you!
John Walker Lindh & California school
Islam proselytized in Public
Homeschool or Public School
Militant Terrorist Islam
God blesses those who bless Israel
For Women Only
About us /Contact
Dark Side of Pluralism:
Attack on Freedom
by Jen Shroder
7/1/04 also in
The following are excerpts by the academic
elite, published professors of Harvard, Stanford, Yale, etc., regarding
pluralism including, "No philosopher denies" that religious diversity is
detrimental to faith. At close examination,
these highly esteemed professors prove that "pluralism" is a hate
religion dedicated to eradicating the fundamental beliefs of
Christianity, Judaism and all real faith. In their own words, they:
- claim to "defeat Christian exclusivism"
(the belief that Christ is the only way);
- demand that Christian exclusivists prove
their religious beliefs or relinquish them;
- admit the impact of pluralism can
"significantly reduce levels of confidence in the truth of certain
beliefs" and precipitate belief abandonment, (diminishes faith);
- develop formulations to determine whether
Christians are "rational." (Thus begins the argument that real faith
is a diagnosable mental disorder).
- provide a definition of pluralism that meets the legal criteria of religion and
thus the Department of Education is in violation of the Establishment Clause.
These pluralist pretexts described by professors
below are already instituted in history-social science classrooms in
public school. California has increasingly demanded "pluralism
training" for a teaching credential. Pluralist beliefs have become so
popular that in some places, "Diversity Requirements" are now
mandatory even for an AA degree.
"Religious Diversity, (Pluralism)"
by D. Basinger
is the only article offered in the Stanford University
under "Pluralism" and "Religious Diversity". Its placement is approved
by a distinguished
Editorial Board comprised of academia's elite PhD's and professors
nationwide. Click here
for the full text, BlessedCause comments
"One obvious response to religious diversity is to maintain that
since there exists no divine reality — since the referent in all
religious truth claims related to the divine is nonexistent — all
such claims are false..."
"No philosopher denies that the awareness of (realization of)
seeming religious diversity sometimes does in fact have an impact on
an exclusivist [believes there's is the only
true way] — from causing minor uneasiness to significantly
reducing her level of confidence in the truth of certain beliefs to
precipitating belief abandonment."
Pluralists have just pled GUILTY of violating the Free Exercise
clause of the First Amendment. This is an admission of the reprogramming effect
on our children, though in context is presented as a goal.
"David Silver comes to a similar conclusion: "[Exclusivists]
should provide independent evidence for the claim that they have a
special source of religious knowledge … or they should relinquish
their exclusivist religious beliefs" (Silver 2001, 11).
Freedom trumps all
epistemic arguments. Teachers trained to
"guide" children in "innovative curriculum practices" to pluralist
beliefs stemming from Silver's assertions are in violation of civil
Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled in favor of requiring 7th
grade students to memorize prayers to Allah because a hypothetical
"reasonable observer" would not conclude that these prayers were done
with belief. This is the same reasoning being used in courts today,
imposing pluralist standards, disregarding religious rights, injecting
pluralist beliefs, (philosophy’s illegitimate child), and enforcing it
through public education. Coincidentally, Hamilton attended
Stanford, the source of this publication.
Silver, (quoted above), an Associate Professor at the Universities
of Delaware and Pennsylvania, also published, Religious Experience
and the Facts of Religious Pluralism in which he writes:
"A defeater for Christian belief would be some other belief (or
other epistemic state) the possession of which would make it
rationally impossible to continue to believe in the truth of
Christian doctrine...I will then argue that the facts of
religious pluralism do provide a defeater for his version for
Christian exclusivism, and indeed for any version of religious
exclusivism that is similarly based on religious experience.
This is because such a defense of religious exclusivism faces a
dilemma: either it involves a kind of vicious epistemic circularity,
or it is highly implausible."
Back to Religious Diversity (Pluralism):
"Julian Willard goes even further. He argues that when
exclusivists become aware of diversity and cannot demonstrate that
their perspective is superior to that of their competitors, they not
only lose the right to hold the exclusivistic belief in question
justifiably, they have an epistemic obligation to "set about
abandoning" the religious practices based on this exclusivistic
belief. (Willard 2001, 68)."
We lost our right to have a belief? (shock) This lesson is in
direct violation of how the Supreme Court defines religion: "But we
hasten to emphasize that while the 'truth' of a belief is not open to
question, there remains the significant question whether it is 'truly
held.' " United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163,
supposedly began epistemically but they are being played out
surreptitiously in the History-Social Studies of religion.
"Can a person who acknowledges religious diversity remain
justified in claiming just one perspective to be correct? If so, is
it morally justifiable to attempt to convert others to a different
This pluralist is attempting to do that right now, what is immoral
is using government funding and educational authority to coerce students to
abandon their beliefs and FORCE them to learn and respond in required pluralist fashion.
This is fascism.
California State Standards demonstrates they have answered and
mandated pluralist beliefs:
“Students should understand the intense religious passions that have
produced fanaticism and war as well as the political arrangements
developed (such as separation of church and state) that allow
different religious groups to live amicably in a pluralistic society.”
What about all the charities provided because of "religious passion"?
We all know there is "religious diversity," (many different
religions). People are justified to believe as they choose,
exclusivist or not, without being compelled to explain it or debate it
with public school teachers. We are free to pursue our own choices, to
make them free from forced pluralist reprogramming.
This is liberty. The root and ultimate objective of pluralism clearly opposes liberty and freedom.
"Can it justifiably be claimed that only one religion offers a
path into the eternal presence of God?"
YES. Freedom of Speech is the only justification necessary to offer
"How should, though, an exclusivist coming to an awareness of
religious diversity — the awareness that seemingly sincere,
knowledgeable individuals differ with her on an issue of religious
significance — respond to the reality of such diversity?"
By recognizing we all have the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness individually. By respecting other people’s
opinions, listening politely to other beliefs if one chooses, and then
expressing their own if others are open to listening. It’s called free
will, free expression and thought, normally highly touted by academia
unless it opposes pluralist beliefs demanding totalitarian acceptance.
"How should, for instance, the devout Buddhist or Hindu or
Christian who comes to realize that others who seem as knowledgeable
and devout hold incompatible religious perspectives respond?"
Would it be possible to allow free expression and thought between
these two hypothetical people? Or must we impose the fascist beliefs
of pluralists endeavoring to force their own religious supremacy?
on page 2
for the full text of
Religious Diversity, (Pluralism) with blessedcause commentary and sources.
BACK TO BLESSEDCAUSE