Ingenieria

RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY:
SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR MONOTHEISM
by Rita M. Gross
Coming to terms with genuine pluralism is the most
important agenda facing religious leaders.
RITA M. GROSS is author of Buddhism after Patriarchy,
Feminism and Religion: An Introduction, and most
recently Soaring and Settling: Buddhist Perspectives on
Contemporary Social and Religious Issues. This essay
firstappeared in Wisconsin Dialogue: A Facu lty Journal
for the University of Wisconsin -Eau Claire 11 (1991): 3548, and is reprinted by permission. It is dedicated to the
memory of Howard Lutz, Professor Emeritus of History,
whose loving companionship during the time in which
this article was writt en is greatly appreciated.
Clearly, the diversity of religions in the world has been a fact throughoutthe entire history of all the world's major living religious traditions.
Nevertheless, this diversity has been made the basis for contention rather
than community in many cases, and the monotheistic religions have
often been among the worst offenders on this score. The strong tendency
to display hostility toward different religious positions is connected with
a strong tendency toward xenophobiaand ethnoce ntrism. This reaction
seems to be built into conventional human responses and has even been
included among the major responses of religious people to their
environment by the great historian of religions, Mircea Eliade. He
hypothesizes that homo religiosus strives to live at the center of his
mythological universe, which is felt to be a cosmos,organized space
inhabited by humanbeings. Beyond that space is chaos, whose
inhabitants are felt to be demonic or subhuman.(1)
Because the tendency to be hostile to people who are different is so
strong, it is an important religious problem. This essay will
systematically consider the dynamics of religious pluralism and propose
techniques for dealing with diversity. Religious diversity is an important
component of culturaldiversity, which educators are now taking
seriously in their pedagogies. However, cultural diversity and religious
diversity are often evaluated quite differently. In our society now, th ere
is at least a polite and superficial consensus that cultural diversity is here
to stay and may enrich life. Minimally, people realize that cultural,
ethnic, and class chauvinism create problems and areinappropriate,

though they may be difficult to overcome. Regarding religious diversity,
quite a different evaluation is often employed. Many people value the
feeling that their religion is indeed superior to others and regard such
religious chauvinism as a necessary component of religious commitment,
or even a virtue to be cultivated among the faithful. In their official
theologies, mostreligions have dealt with religious diversity only in a
cursory or inadequate fashion. Frequently, religions have encouraged
mutual hostility by teaching that foreign religions are not only different,
but also demonic, or at least inferior.
The ethical problems with such a position should be obvious. The
position is clearly inadequate in any age and place; in the global village
of the latetwentieth century it is also dangerous. Nevertheless, it
continues to be popular in many religions and is at least partially
responsible for many of the numerous conflicts currently disrupting our
world. In this essay, I will explore more ethically sensitive and
intellectually satisfying ways of combining commitment to a specific
religion with the reality of religious diversity than theconventional ones
outlined above. I will direct my comments mainly at monotheistic
religions for two obvious reasons. Most readers of this essay will come
from monotheistic backgrounds. And monotheistic religions have had
the most difficult problems in resolving the issue of religious diversity.
All religions produce a kind of elementary religious chauvinism because
of universal human weaknesses....