Pluralism is one of the greatly misunderstood elements of American culture. Each prominent ideology and belief system assumes they can govern more morally than the other. Again, the centralization of power is a situation the Founding Fathers resisted so fervently. Once any ideology or strategy becomes set on driving out another, the culture is ripe for conflict. This may sound like diversity, but it is far from it. In the 1850s, American political diversity was so prominent that it led to the birth of the Republican Party and the ignition of the Civil War.
Diversity is a popular sentiment that has led to great division. Identity has become a device of entitlement. If someone can convince another that they are more deserving because of how different they claim to be, they are rewarded with immunity from consequence while others are not. For those who say, “Life’s not fair,” it becomes all the more so with the adoption of socially engineered diversity.
The Republican Party was created out of the conflict amongst the Whigs concerning the heinous presence of slavery. Whigs in the North did not own slaves; Whigs in the South did. The capital created by northern states with the introduction of industrial technology threatened the farm-based southern states. Slavery was a way for southern states to stay competitive. The majority of American consumers could not accept slavery as a legitimate means to raise national capital. Slave owners saw slaves as sub-human, while industrial capitalists greatly disagreed. The Compromise of 1850 maintained “diversity” to the point that the war in 1861 was inevitable. Capitalism was not a part of the implementation of slavery, but it was an element that overrode the polarization concerning the slavery issue.
Pluralism requires common ground. There must be underlining principles that all are willing to adhere to. That is where the United States gets its motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (From The Many, One). Diversity is the exact opposite. In contrast, it prefers “From The One, Many.” Supremacy groups demanding “separate, but equal” are no different. The desegregation trend of the 1950s resisted by saying “equal, and never separate.” As college campuses continue to agree to race/sex/religious “safe spaces,” the culture will revert to self-segregation. It is an absolute pity.
Within culture, religious institutions deal with the same frailty. Many times pluralism is perceived as secularism. In reality, pluralism gives equal space and protection to religion, as well as the lack thereof. The religious should not interpret that as a threat, unless they are directly infringed upon by an opposing group (religious or not). As long as both are protected and allowed to exist freely, neither one will be limited. Studies may show that religious institutions are beneficial to society, but when a government decides to use theology as an all-encompassing rule of law, one is left with a theocracy. For that very reason the Founding Fathers separated from the rule of the Church of England. That was a contributing factor as to why the Founding Fathers did not establish a national religion.
John Adams asserted that, “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
The left has its own theology. Government is God, and those not in favor of victimhood status are morally inferior. That is imposing its self-declared righteousness on a society. Everything one is to think, say, and do what is pre-prescribed. If a society were to choose a theocracy, it would revert to an extreme one. Everyone is answerable to one another at all times. Any failure to adhere is punishable without mercy.
The famous atheist philosopher, Christopher Hitchens, stated, “It's a curious thing in American life that the most abject nonsense will be excused if the utterer can claim the sanction of religion. A country which forbids an established church by law is prey to any denomination. The best that can be said is that this is pluralism of a kind.”
When the individual is made a priority, the need for over-regulation is limited. The priority of one over another will always break down and diminish liberty. Again, when a law is established it ought to result in the neutralization of division. It is the best way to correct division. We either triumph together, or not at all.
By: Rosemary Dewar