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

Woe to ACLU and NEA Teachers Union

Free Original Christian Art, Music & Sculpture

Links Page



Main Index

The Sign of Jonah explained,  God's message is heard

Islam Induction in our Public School Textbooks
actual words of Houghton Mifflin exposed and why

Quotes of Quran, Hadiths, Koran about infidels

Revelation 12

BlessedCause Footwashing Ministries

Christian Encouragement

Hearing God & Personally Witnessed  Miracles

Free Original Christian Art, Music & Sculpture

How Clinton, ACLU wrote Religious Guidelines & U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton

Thank you to all vets, our troops and military! God BLESS and lead you!

John Walker Lindh & California school proselytizing

Islam proselytized in Public School

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 short version

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:

  1. claim to "defeat Christian exclusivism" (the belief that Christ is the only way);
  2. demand that Christian exclusivists prove their religious beliefs or relinquish them;
  3. admit the impact of pluralism can "significantly reduce levels of confidence in the truth of certain beliefs" and precipitate belief abandonment, (diminishes faith); 
  4. develop formulations to determine whether Christians are "rational." (Thus begins the argument that real faith is a diagnosable mental disorder).
  5. 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 Philosophy Encyclopedia 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 in blue:

"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 rights.

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." (Emphasis mine).

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,

These arguments 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 perspective?"

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 a belief.

"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?

continued on page 2

Click here for the full text of
Religious Diversity, (Pluralism) with blessedcause commentary and sources.